text:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 10

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

Unconventional weapon

 * The result of the discussion was Dabify. Converted to dab page by BDD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Unconventional weapon → Weapon of mass destruction (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unconventional_weapon&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Does not seem to be the same thing according to this. Guardian article seems to describe it more like Unconventional warfare, but I am not sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete there are many types of unconventional weapons, most of which are not WMDs (unless you use the very loose definition of WMD currently in the right-wing press, where something that kills 1 person and only ever could kill 2 people is somehow a WMD) IEDs are unconventional weapons, booby traps are unconventional weapons, punji pits are unconventional weapons, etc. If you use the definition of conventional explosives, most of these are still not WMDs -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete to encourage article creation . -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to conventional weapon as . Ivanvector (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I was wondering if there was a term to mean weapons designed for a very specific purpose, such as Hobart's Funnies. Can't find one though. Si Trew (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps retarget to improvised weapon. Si Trew (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we say that all "unconventional" weapons are improvised? Ivanvector (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or removing the qualifier entirely, is everything that is improvised unconventional? Thesaurus.com doesn't seem to think so. Si Trew (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's my point, I think. Certainly an improvised weapon is unconventional. But other forms of weapon (e.g. booby traps, kamikaze attacks, biological weapons, sharks with frickin' lasers) are hardly improvised but usually considered unconventional. Ivanvector (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see your point, and am coming around to your view of making an, but reading that, there seem three groups: "conventional", "unconventional" and "adapted from something else" ("improvised") which overlap somewhat. Would you say a sawn-off shotgun (in the sense " illegal weapons that are created by cutting off the barrel of a standard shotgun" — from that article) was an improvised weapon? Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We also have Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention (among others) but presumably this is not the sense in which "conventional" is meant. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Dabify It looks like there are multiple topics this phrase could legitimately refer to. Conventional weapon is the most tempting, but that would sort of leave it up to the reader to figure out what an unconventional weapon might look like. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect. Take a look, Mr. Guye, Lenticel, Ivanvector, and Si. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment may want to see this as well. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think you could ping an IP. Can you? --BDD (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I am in support of the new disambiguation plan. Seems like the best way to do it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably better. I'm not so sure about weapon of mass destruction being up there, since many are conventional weapons. But I guess that's a political debate for somewhere else. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Conventional weapon is admittedly not in good shape, but part of the problem here is that phrase is used to mean non-WMDs. I haven't really heard of WMDs explicitly referred to as "unconventional weapons", but it's a logical extension. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support dabify. Although I found it a bit unconventional ;) -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nee xon

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Nee xon → Richard Nixon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nee_xon&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I do not think that this is plausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, implausible search term. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. All I came up with was Star Trek: Phase II but this is a male character and I don't think Vulcans have married names anyway, so this would be nonsense. Ivanvector (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oddly, I was thinking along the same lines (never having heard of this character), and the hatnote at Xon links there. I've no idea if Vulcans have married names (and in many cultures the man may also change surname on marriage) but "Xon" would, in any case, presumably be the birth name not the married name, under which poor old Xon (who appears to have no love-interest) would now be entitled per WP:COMMONNAME. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment is this some sort of phonetic representation of Vietnamese or Chinese pronunciation of Nixon? -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Heir to Blair

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Cameronism. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Heir to Blair → David Cameron (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heir_to_Blair&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I think this redirect, in good faith, was created after the target said 'I am the heir to Blair'. Though when I searched it, I came up primarily with things related to motherhood and parenting. There is significant media coverage about him and this quote, it is just that the concept may not have originated with Cameron. I am an American with no knowledge of what this phrase means or what Cameron intended by saying it. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The quote was made by Cameron in 2005. This from Wikiquote says: "I am the heir to Blair. Remarks to newspaper executives (3 October 2005), as quoted in "Horror as Cameron brandishes the B-word" by Andrew Pierce, in The Times (5 October 2005), page 9." It is also mentioned here, and there are other sources for it. It was discussed at length before 2010 by various media, but much less so in recent years. I think what he was trying to say was that he would continue with the policies of Tony Blair (who was Prime Minister between 1997 and 2007), something he has done in part. Therefore I think it's relevant. This is Paul (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Cameronism, where the origin of the term is explained, with a ref to the Pierce article Paul gives above. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I didn't realise we had that one, but it ties in nicely with the topic. This is Paul (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dark agenda

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Dark agenda → Illuminati (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dark_agenda&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

An IP editor created this page back in 2005 as an article with the only content being "Illuminati conspiracy's second name." A user named had seen this and boldly redirected it to the current target. The term "dark agenda" is not primarily used to refer to the Illuminati, as I have seen looking through Google results. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete dark agendas are not restricted to Illuminati -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Dillon

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Jonathan Dillon → Abraham Lincoln (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Dillon&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, supposedly a watchmaker who fixed something of Lincoln's, but there is no mention of him in the article, so it's just confusing and harmful.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Does more harm than good. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD "confusion" and WP:RFD. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jake Huseman

 * The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G3. by User:Mojo_Hand Lenticel  ( talk ) 00:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Jake Huseman → George Washington (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Huseman&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, fairly new redirect, no mention of "Jake" on the target page, and harmful.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete. WP:G3 "Pure vandalism and blatant hoax" Likely a bad joke. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Tea boy
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17%23Tea boy

Category:People from Salem

 * The result of the discussion was procedural close (non-admin closure) . There is already a discussion on this redirect at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 9. Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * [[Category:People from Salem]] → Category:People from Salem, Tamil Nadu (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_from_Salem&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Time to delete this poorly named category, after I moved it. There are lots of Salems: Category:People from Salem, Massachusetts, Category:People from Salem, Oregon, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cooperation

 * The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. There appears to be no opposition. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * WikiProject Cooperation → Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_Cooperation&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

A misleading redirect that looks like a cross-space link to a wikiproject but it actually leads to a mainspace article. The title refers to a WikiProject that does actually exist thus it is a WP:SURPRISE violation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The target article contains externally-sourced material about the WikiProject. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the reader's expectation (per WP:SURPRISE) that clicking on a link that reads "WikiProject Cooperation" would cause the actual WikiProject's page to come up? Actually this raises a broader issue of the titling of mainspace articles about Wikipedia pages/structures/entities - perhaps we need explicit disambiguation between the WP page and the article about it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't divert "readers" from mainspace into project space. Someone who wants to see a WikiProject page should know enough to stick "WP:" in front of it in the search box. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep Remember Wikipedia content (which includes redirects) is not just for Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Keep Mainspace should normally only link to mainspace. There are a few exceptions (eg: Citation needed now goes to Citation needed due to the phrase's common currency), but they are very much in the minority. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Oh No

 * The result of the discussion was speedy close, as I have WP:BOLDly added the proper project banner. Tavix | Talk  16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Talk:Oh No → Talk:Oh No (album) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oh_No&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

While this is a fairly old redirect, it seems strange to me that the talk page of this disambiguation page should be a redirect. Eman 235 / talk 04:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewrite to just have a project banner WikiProject Disambiguation which does not require an RFD to do. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewrite per 70.51. Looks to be left over from a page move of Oh No (album) which used to live at Oh No, but the talk redirect is unnecessary. Ivanvector (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Flashygoodness

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Flashygoodness → Music (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flashygoodness&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, term not mentioned in article, though it might have some ties to music.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete if it's new.  Appears to be a currently NN musician-composer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Tomecide

 * The result of the discussion was Retarget to book burning. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Tomecide → Book (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomecide&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, makes no sense.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to mean "The act of murdering or destroying a book" but it is obscure. This is where I found it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to be a very obscure synonym for Book burning or libricide -- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Book burning. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Retarget to book burning and add the word as an alternate to the parenthesis in the opening sentence. Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm okay with the retarget arguments too. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment I'm fine with retargeting to book burning, so... withdrawn? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did wonder if "tumescide" would be a way to reduce a swelling (tumescence), but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kill someone else

 * The result of the discussion was delete. I find the delete arguments more convincing. This doesn't seem to be a likely search term, and it's too vague to parse with much certainty. Rich's interpretation is one possibility; Si Trew explores some others. Simply redirecting to homicide is unlikely to satisfy a reader, even if one did search for such a phrase. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Kill someone else → Murder (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kill_someone_else&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Um. . .I'm not sure if the definition of a word ought to redirect to that word. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, because I'm not sure what that should target. Also not a very likely search term. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Homicide more accurate target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete. I imagine this was used as an alternative to a pipe, once upon a time, but isn't now. Since "kill someone" is enough to mean "homicide", what does the "else" add? Perhaps:
 * X intended to kill or harm Y, but killed Z instead. (manslaughter, second degree murder or mistaken identity)
 * X killed Y, and also killed Z. (multiple murder → murder, or multiple homicide)
 * Yet Kill someone on its own is red. WP:RFD, "the redirect may cause confusion". Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Retarget Homicide Really it is like the exact definition, equivalent to "(a human being) killing another human being" as from the lede.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 08:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite: that definition is synonymous with "kill someone". The "else" in "Kill someone else" is thus either redundant, or means there is a third party, and each is as likely as the other in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Kill someone else" is distinct from killing one's self. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Nick Synodis

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Nick Synodis → Duck (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Synodis&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, makes no sense.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Google search implies he's associated with the Aflac Duck, but the reference is vague and redirecting to Aflac may be confusing considering that he isn't mentioned there. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - made up. Would qualify for A11 except that doesn't apply to redirects. Vanity redirect; see his Twitter profile. Ivanvector (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cocaine hippo

 * The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Cocaine hippo → Hippopotamus (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cocaine_hippo&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, makes no sense, no mention of "cocaine hippo[s]" in the section, or in the whole article for that matter.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The story can be found at Hippopotamus. Cocaine trafficker Pablo Escobar collected these hippos when he was alive and the descendants of these hippos still plague Colombia. Still I doubt that this would be a good redirect. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep now that there is a cited mention courtesy of Rich Farmbrough -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delere while that last post offered some context there is nothing in that section to indicate that those hippos were known as Cocaine hippo meaning that the redirect is not helpful.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a mention of the National Geographic documentary of that name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Keep per Rich Farmbrough. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the underscore in the redirect—thus Hippopotamus. Rammer (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

True ancestor

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * True ancestor → Vampire (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_ancestor&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Section it was intended to go to was likely removed, leaving no purpose for it here. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a fictional race of vampires from the Type-Moon franchise's Tsukihime. It's probably better off explained in the franchise's dedicated wikia-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tsukihime per Lenticel's info. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Colon Capital D :D

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Colon Capital D :D → Emoticon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colon_Capital_D_:D&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible search term, makes no sense.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Oh, now I get it. It seems that the colon is used frequently in emoticons. Still, too vague. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete doubling up the same thing, and writing out the statement   is not a proper use for a redirect. The redundancy here also makes its weird. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep this has been a redirect for 9 years, and clearly meets the "neither new nor harmful" criteria. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete Being 9 years old isn't a reason to keep. If it doesn't make sense, is implausible, and potentially misleading, it should definitely be deleted. Tavix | Talk  17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it possibly misleading? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete per above. Confusing at best. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Colonoh

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Colonoh → Emoticon (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colonoh&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, makes no sense. Shares the name of the redirect's creator.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete makes no sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete writing out   is not a proper use for the redirect. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment this might be usable as a typo for colonel... -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Again an old and non-harmful redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete Google has nothing about this term referring to emoticons, so it is completely implausible. Since age isn't a reason to keep, it should be deleted. (PS: I disagree about it being a typo for colonel. If so, I feel like there would be at least something on Google that shows that someone made that typo before, but I'm not seeing anything. When you factor in the pronunciation of the word, that just seems completely implausible as well.) Tavix | Talk  18:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as a typo on a QWERTYish keyboard it's literally far-fetched: O and E, and L and H, are not close to each other. But in some pronunciations the "-el" almost completely disappears (in mine, for example, where it's pronounced lazily something like "kerno") and so I could see that phonetically it might cut the mustard. Si Trew (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete per above. Confusing at best. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Swift exit

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Swift exit → Troll (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swift_exit&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Huh? No sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, makes no sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete most of my hits are, oddly, about Taylor Swift's exit which makes even less sense. -- Lenticel  ( talk ) 03:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing about speedy evacuation at the target -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD, confusing. If anything it should probably go to the DAB page evacuation, but WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ngentot

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Ngentot → Sex (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ngentot&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is likely the Indonesian word for "naked". Sex is not especially Indonesian. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - misleading. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * With no prejudice to recreation as a redirect to Indonesian profanity once it exists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete - this is apparently the Indonesian equivalent of fuck, apparently considered one of the most offensive words in the language, according to UrbanDB (link might be NSFW if your employer is very sensitive) however as Mr. Guye points out our f-word is not particular to Indonesian. Ivanvector (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete since sex is universal, in fact too universal. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! Si Trew (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

List of terms for avoiding sexual intercourse

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * List of terms for avoiding sexual intercourse → Sex (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terms_for_avoiding_sexual_intercourse&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

WP:SURPRISE Mr. Guye (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom although my inner 14-year old wants this List to exist :) -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. *sigh* -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete to encourage list creation! Or just delete. Ivanvector (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Sexual abstinence. And merge the material from Talk:Sexual abstinence/Terms for avoiding sexual intercourse to Sexual abstinence, if required.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete to encourage the list creation. The retarget (recreation) can be done after the merge or creation of content. Si Trew (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Submission to God

 * The result of the discussion was keep and refine target to Islam. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Submission to God → Islam (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Submission_to_God&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Not exclusive to Islam, or any two or three groups of religions. Apparently someone tried to link it to Christianity at the same time. There is likely a better target than either of these. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would think that we should have an article on the general concept at this title. bd2412  T 03:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: isn't "submission to God" the literal translation of Islam? Whether or not there is a more appropriate target, this would seem to have been the redirect's creator's intention. If kept, modify to redirect to section "Etymology and meaning". הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to monotheism or delete to submit to a singular God would be to become a monotheist -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or create an article (or dab) per BD2412. I have added "Redirect with possibilities" in case we are lazy.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Retarget to Islam per Hasirpad (this is the literal meaning of the word Islam) and add a hatnote at the target section if there are possibilities for other doctrines. Probably there is an opportunity for this to be a separate article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Refine Target to Islam per Hasirpad -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RFD, confusing (though Islam is a photo finish), as it could mean supplication or more generally prayer. Submission → deference do not mention those words' religious meanings. Si Trew (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Qaeda of Jihad

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Qaeda of Jihad → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qaeda_of_Jihad&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Either POV or just inaccurate. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not exactly POV, but doesn't really make much sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete According to my search ISIS may be linked to organizations called alQaeda of Jihad. However, I think this term is an implausible misspelling. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We generally omit "the" at the beginning of article names so it seems a fairly likely variant. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * But this is the omission of "al", not "the". Nobody, as far as I know, calls the organisation "Qaeda".
 * The omission of definite articles on foreign language words seems to follow a good deal of WP:COMMONSENSE, f'rexample Qaeda is an R to DAB at Qaida (of the two entries, one being Urdu and the other Arabic). Other examples such as Figaro, El Paso, Le Mans, Hoi Polloi (not Polloi) etc show rather a good dose of common in this regard (as well as WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, etc), and WP:COMMONNAME specifically exemplifies Le Hague not 's-Gravenhage (which does in fact redirect there, as does Gravenhage and Den Haag, but not Haag, which is a DAB page). Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Haper

 * The result of the discussion was delete. This could kind of go either way, though. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Haper → Stephen Harper (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haper&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, "Stephen Haper" might be appropriate, but "Haper"? Harper isn't a rare surname.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Haper seems to be a Dutch word and also Norwegian word. Anyways, I can't find a good target for this term. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Does harm. Redirect is too vague to be helpful. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete possible typo for Harper and Happer -- note similar typo redirect Haper Lee -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Haper Lee has been R to Harper Lee since 2004 though, and is its obvious target. It might even get more hits, now, with her new book coming out this summer. I would probably cross-ref the DABs at Harper and Happer (and maybe at Harper (name)) in their "See also" sections, though. Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Retarget to Harper as best target and probably helpful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete - I think it's too ambiguous what the intent of this misspelling is, so it's best deleted to prevent confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Harper as . I can't think of any other likely typos. Si Trew (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also fine with a retarget suggestion. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just as likely this is a misspelling of Happer. Are you sure retargeting is the best option? Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a "see also" section as drafted by Si Trew is sufficient enough for that issue.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've boldly tied together the above-mentioned DAB pages via their "See also"s; I don't think that prejudices this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all, that seems a fine solution. Google gives me about 10,000x more hits for "Harper" versus "Happer", but I am searching from Canada. Ivanvector (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Retarget per above. There are some people that actually have the last name Haper per social networks results, but none of them are especially notable. On the other hand, mistaking Harper for Haper has been seen in more reliable sources. Xinhua ("... Haper, same as (David) Beckham's daughter") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

V.I.P (Jessie J Song)

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to 4 Times. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * V.I.P (Jessie J Song) → Jessie J (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V.I.P_(Jessie_J_Song)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I believe deletion is best, I tried to find the right album to re-redirect this to, but I can't find any place that mentions "V.I.P" as a Jessie J song.  Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete Does harm. I cannot find any place that mentions it as a Jessie J song either. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 4 Times, an album containing the song VIP by Koda Kumi, Toby Gad, Jessica Cornish (Jessie J) and T-Pain. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Retarget per Rich Farmbrough, but I note a certain lack of precision: the caps on "Song" and the lack of punc after "P". None of the following exists:
 * VIP (Jessie J song)
 * VIP (Jessie J Song)
 * VIP (Jessie J. song)
 * VIP (Jessie J. Song)
 * V.I.P (Jessie J song)
 * V.I.P (Jessie J. song)
 * V.I.P (Jessie J. Song)
 * V.I.P. (Jessie J song)
 * V.I.P. (Jessie J Song)
 * V.I.P. (Jessie J. song)
 * V.I.P. (Jessie J. Song)
 * V. I. P. (Jessie J song)
 * V. I. P. (Jessie J Song)
 * V. I. P. (Jessie J. song)
 * V. I. P. (Jessie J. Song)
 * V. I. P (Jessie J song)
 * V. I. P (Jessie J Song)
 * V. I. P (Jessie J. song)
 * V. I. P (Jessie J. Song)
 * The song is in fact twice spelled "V.I.P" and twice "V.I.P." at the suggested target. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum. In fact, these are also red, so the disambiguation is overly-specific (but might as well stet):
 * VIP (song)
 * V.I.P (song)
 * V.I.P. (song)
 * VIP (Song)
 * V.I.P (Song)
 * V.I.P. (Song)
 * V. I. P (Song)
 * V. I. P. (Song)
 * Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Communist government (disambiguation)

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Communist government (disambiguation) → Communism (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_government_(disambiguation)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Name implies redirection to a disambiguation page, this one does not. Surprise!. I mean, its category on the page says in black bold print: this template should only appear on a redirect page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title.  Mr. Guye (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from 2008 to 2013, communist government was a disambiguation page -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, this redirect does no harm, and in the event of Communist government becoming a dab page or article again, which it probably should, it serves a purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete as potentially harmful/confusing. Any redirect with a (disambiguation) qualifier should be redirected to a disambiguation. Tavix | Talk  16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - left over from WP:TWODABS page move. Should not have been left at the time. Communist government probably shouldn't redirect to Communism since in practice the two concepts are pretty far apart, but that's a different discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:G6, housekeeping. It does "appear on a redirect page that has "(disambiguation)" in its title". It's just that the redirect doesn't target a DAB page. It doesn't say that it must do that. (But obviously it should.) Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Juan McCain

 * The result of the discussion was delete. The delete arguments are stronger here, as the redirect is both a non-neutral reference to a living person and potentially confusing. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Juan McCain → John McCain (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_McCain&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

While I understand the possibility of a mishearing somewhere, this one might be a WP:SURPRISE for someone who might actually be looking for someone named Juan. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, not plausible search term. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A surprise is not a problem in this context. It says "we don't have that article".  If you  think we should have an article on Juan McCain, tag with .  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Keep, as potentially useful. Tavix | Talk  18:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems to be a nickname he gained regarding his stance on immigration. However, I'm not familiar enough with American politics to lean on either keep or redirect. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BLP, this sort of attack requires a source, and it is not discussed at all (referenced or otherwise) at the target. It would violate WP:NPOV to do so, probably. Ivanvector (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think it would violate WP:NPOV to say that he is called that in opinion pieces in RS, but since that content is not present, WP:RFD, confusing. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be WP:UNDUE to write that, I'd say. Maybe if there was a Criticism of John McCain. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bronco Bama

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Bronco Bama → Barack Obama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronco_Bama&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Bronco Bamma → Barack Obama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronco_Bamma&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Possibly some troll made this to make fun of how his name is read. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, smh, probably a troll. Actually not a troll, but either way this is POV garbage. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, oops! Please note that I had no intention of trolling or humor. The redirect was innocently (naively) created by me as a variation of the redirect Bronco Bamma (created by another user). I believe that redirect was tagged as a misspelling redirect, so I assumed it was a legitimate addition to the various misspelling redirects to President Obama. In that case, we'll want to nominate Bronco Bamma for deletion as well. Thanks, -- Bananasoldier  (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added Bronco Bamma per Bananasoldier and per my rationale below. Whatever is the consensus here should apply to both of these redirects since they are clearly related. Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete - while this is a plausible misspelling of a likely search target (see ) it would have to retarget to an article on the girl in the video, rather than to Barack Obama, and that article would violate WP:BLP1E. Targeting to the President's article is improper, so this should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Authoritarian cultist
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17%23Authoritarian cultist

Bible beater

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to List of religious slurs. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Bible beater → Christianity (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_beater&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I think this might be POV, but I'm not entirely sure. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be another POV redirect. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Retarget to List of religious slurs where other ahem "colorful" terms are recorded. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But not this one. Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feeling masochistic today so I added a cited mention of said slur in the list. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of religious slurs, then. I am not sure "slurs" is the right word, there, but that's another matter... we had a terrible bind over what to call List of disparaging place names, you may recall. Si Trew (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Write Article/Stub Frankly, I do not remember any involvement or why this redirect was created, but looking at it, it is orphaned (no links other than that surrounding this discussion). I would not be surprised to find out that there are some citable source behind the concept of a "bible beater", and unless somebody wants to find them and write an article on it, I think the redirect should be deleted. Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Fictitous

 * The result of the discussion was Retarget to Fictitious, as redressing a mistaken bot repair. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I revised this as on closing I retargeted it to Fiction by mistake, against the consensus established here. Sorry, my slip. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Fictitous → Religion (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fictitous&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

**Sigh** another highly WP:POV redirect. This one is also WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad POV once again. Retarget to Fictitious. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Retarget to Fiction since Fictional redirects there. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Fiction. bd2412  T 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to fiction there are far too many fictitious things in the world to make linking to any on thing valid.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I retargeted it to the fiction page. It turns out that was the original target but was accidentally retargeted to the religion page by a bot when the fiction page was briefly redirected to the religion page in April 2010.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * REtartget to Fictitious as R from typo -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm okay with this retarget as well. --05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Retarget to Fictitious per 70.51. Ivanvector (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Magical thinking/Revised

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Magical thinking. I'm tagging it with R with old history, which also categorizes it as unprintworthy. This isn't especially satisfying, but I think it's the simplest solution. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Magical thinking/Revised → Religion (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magical_thinking/Revised&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

POV again, also implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad POV. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It could possibly be redirected back to Magical Thinking. It was retargted by a bot to the current article after a vandal redirected Magical Thinking (they also redirected Priest to rapist and money manager to Jew so there is no question) to Religion.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep restore target to Magical thinking where it used to redirect to until a double-redirect-bot retargeted it to "religion" as vandalism in 2010. The redirect was never repaired. The redirect should be repaired, as it contains a sandbox version of the article magical thinking that was subsequently moved to the subject page. However, this edit history should exist as a talk page subpage, instead of a subjectspace subpage, so move edit history to Talk:Magical thinking/Revised and add a notice about the 2008 merger as HTML comments to the redirect -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * History merge the page into magical thinking, which is I think what 70.51 means. Ivanvector (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Hist merge per 75. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Anthony Appleyard, could you lend a hand? I'm still not confident in any but the simplest histmerge cases, though I'd be happy to try to learn so I don't have to call on you every time. (Is there even another admin proficient in this, so I could at least give you a break?) --BDD (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no :: Magical thinking/Revised and Magical Thinking are partly WP:Parallel histories; and in the period when the supposed cut-and-pastes happened, page Magical thinking is running at about 10,000 bytes and page Magical thinking/Revised is running at about 13,470 bytes, showing much difference between them, and see this diff between them. There may have partial copies back from Magical thinking/Revised to Magical thinking, but not a histmerge-able clean complete move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. In that case, I guess just retarget to magical thinking and either leave it or take it to Mfd. Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Magickal thinking

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Magical thinking. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Magickal thinking → Religion (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magickal_thinking&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Horribly POV. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, bad POV. Retarget to Magical thinking per Lenticel. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Magical thinking as plausible synonym.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Magical thinking per Lenticel. bd2412  T 03:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC
 * Restore target/Keep this was the result of the double-redirect-bot acting on vandalism from 2010, but the redirect was not repaired after the article was repaired, so it should be restored to pointing to magical thinking -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget as above. Ivanvector (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Evil-disposed
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 17%23Evil-disposed

Evil purpose

 * The result of the discussion was retarget to Evil Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Evil purpose → Malice (law) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_purpose&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The target only talks about malice as a legal term. Unless evil purpose is a legal term that means the same thing or something related to Malice in law, then it has no business here. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Evil. bd2412  T 02:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * REtarget to evil per BD2412 -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Evil, or possibly intention (criminal law) (in the lede at DAB page Criminal intent, which was piped, now isn't). Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to evil per  bd2412  T -- Lenticel  ( talk ) 00:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, why should it redirect there? "Evil purpose" isn't mentioned there; anyone intentionally looking for this phrase would only be disappointed. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maleficia propositis distinguuntur (Evil deeds are distinguished from evil purposes). I suppose this is a legal dictum, making the redirect sensible. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Delete unless the phrase is explained somewhere on Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to be right now. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

White female rapper

 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * White female rapper → Iggy Azalea (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_female_rapper&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Should be deleted, this is a general term that redirects to a specific person. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or listify as a general classification, of which there are many that fit the description -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that List of female rappers is a WP:CNR → Category:Female rappers (but List of male rappers  → Rapping). White male rapper is red, as is White rapper and List of white rappers. Category:White rappers is red (as is Category:Black rappers). What is Wikipedia's policy on the word "white"/"black" etc to categorize people this way? WP:OPENPARA (via R WP:Ethnicity) says "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". but that applies to the opening para of the bio, not to its title. Si Trew (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But I mean, should white male R&B singer redirect to Justin Timberlake? I don't really know of anything we could do except delete it. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the evidence seems to be that we don't have articles on, categories for, or lists of, musicians based on their ethnicity or sex, such as white rapper or female wrapper or black rapper or male rapper. WP:BIO says "sexuality" not "sex" and I appreciate the difference, but even so we don't tend to say e.g. "George Smith is a male boxer" in the lede. We do have Plain Brown Wrapper, but that's another thing... Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) ce'd with example Si Trew (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Delete no suitable target/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

 * Speedy delete as promotional for a particular performer -- however notable the performer may be.  DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Eolgi

 * The result of the discussion was Speedy delete R3 by User:Randykitty Tavix | Talk  16:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Eolgi → Interstate Highway System (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eolgi&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

No sense whatsoever. Redirect shares name with its creator. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, makes no sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't find a good definition during my search. It's confusing at best.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: created by a blocked sockpuppet, related to his/her odd obsession with the word (?) "eolgi" and vandalizing interstate-related pages. Probably qualifies for speedy deletion per criterion G5. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 03:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Dennis Edwards

NPOV?
Apart from damning with faint praise, surely "their stage act is quite entertaining" is POV... — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Text has now been adjusted, thanks. Apologies for the slightly tardy response. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dennis Edwards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929200823/http://m.billboard.com/album/dennis-edwards/don-t-look-any-further/6378/review to http://m.billboard.com/album/dennis-edwards/don-t-look-any-further/6378/review

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Death
He died on 2. February look on your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Edwards#cite_note-14 --2003:DE:701:28DC:8526:AFD9:2C4A:600E (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, the article says he's dead. But it's clear from both current sources that be died on 1 February. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dennis Edwards


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous People With A.D.D

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous People With A.D.D
Copy & paste job form the linked sites, which are not commercial and some text has been added, so not strictly copyvio. But they are not reliable sources. We have a list of fictional chracters with ADHD, but I did not see a list which duplicates this. On the other hand, without careful sourcing it is a minefield. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. This type of list should be meticulously sourced or not exist. If reliable sources are provided through the course of this discussion, I'll reconsider. PJM 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Also these types of lists have problems with verification and point of view content, due to the non-public nature of medical records and that many people on this list were/are deceased before the public medical introduction of the term (in the DSM III in 1980).  Point of view problems also crop up as some of these names also commonly appear on net in lists of Famous People with Dyslexia or Famous People with Learning Disorder/Disability (that is not lists of people with LDs and ADD).--Blue520 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Artical lacks sources...the second source is just quoting the first source. The first source states it as "...or shows symptoms of ADD" which makes it misleading to assume that everyone on this list actually has ADD. Nigelthefish 16:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Every one of the claims should be verified. At the moment, the list is useless to a researcher as a claim counts for nothing without evidence to back it up.   (aeropagitica)   17:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Isn't there a category for this already, anyway? 23skidoo 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Gflores Talk 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment funny how the consensus differs on this vs. the speculative lists, if this were titled "People speculated to have ADD" would it then be acceptable? No consistency on this problematic. Let's think through larger issues rather than one-offs here. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No inconsistency fomr me - you'll see I voted deleted on the speculative list as well. But that was speculation taken from a published source, this is speculation taken from a Comcast homepage and a semi-commercial activist website selling product listings (i.e. not even in the same postal district as WP:RS), and then represented as fact. Just zis Guy you know? 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * AfD has no jurisdiction over copyright law, which the nominator alludes to. If someone thinks this infringes copyright, it needs either speedily deleting, or blanking and taking to WP:CP. Copyright problems are not keepable, no matter what AfD may think. -Splash talk 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - badly sourced speculation. --Rob 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Just another star in the night T 23:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Jell-O Museum

Jell-O Gallery
If this article is not merged, then it should be at title Jell-O Gallery as this seems, from its own website, to be the name used, rather than Jell-O Museum. There is already a redirect from Jell-O Gallery to the main museum page. Pam D  19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jell-O Museum


text:
Suffering-focused ethics

Suffering-focused ethics are those views in ethics according to which reducing suffering is either a key priority or our only aim. Those suffering-focused ethics according to which the reduction of suffering is a key prioritiy are pluralistic views that include additional aims, such as the prevention of other disvaluable things like inequality, or the promotion of certain valuable things, such as pleasure. Nevertheless, these views still prioritize reducing preventable suffering over these other aims.

Different suffering-focused ethics
'Suffering-focused ethics' is an umbrella term that includes different normative positions sharing the common feature of giving priority to the reduction of suffering. One type of suffering-focused view is negative consequentialism. On this kind of view, we should act so that we bring about those situations in which there is less suffering. A particular type of negative consequentialist view is negative utilitarianism. According to this view, we should try to bring about situations containing smaller amounts of aggregate suffering, adding up everyone's suffering as having equal value (no matter whose such suffering is).

Other suffering-focused ethics, however, differ significantly from suffering-focused consequentialist views. According to suffering-focused deontological ethics, the moral duty to reduce suffering is particularly relevant. For this reason, it will typically override other moral duties (although the duty to reduce suffering might be overriden by our other duties in certain cases). Moreover, this duty should be followed even if someone could bring about a better situation by violating it.

Finally, there are suffering-focused ethics that focus on the moral character of an individual. On these views, the primary aim of a moral agent should consist in having a sound moral character. On certain suffering-focused character-based ethics, such a moral character will be that of the moral agent with the attitudes and dispositions of a virtuous suffering reducer. However, on other views of this kind it will be that of the moral agent with the attitudes and dispositions of a caring suffering reducer.

Suffering-focused ethics vs. negative ethics
Some suffering-focused views have historically been categorized as 'negative' in the philosophical literature. This nomenclature originated from the idea that these views prioritize the reduction of negative value over the promotion of positive value. While the term 'negative' continues to be widely used when referring to positions such as negative consequentialism and negative utilitarianism, the use of the term 'suffering-focused ethics' has increased during the 21st century. One reason for this increase is that the term 'suffering-focused ethics' describes more accurately the commonalities between the wide range of different suffering-focused views that currently exist.

Relevance of suffering
Suffering-focused ethics can be differentiated in virtue of how much room they leave for promoting values that differ from the reduction of suffering. On some suffering-focused ethics, there is no room for positive values, given that only negative ones matter. In contrast, other views, such as tranquilist views, are compatible with the existence of positive values. However, on these views, positive values only have instrumental significance, that is, they are only good insofar as they prevent suffering.

According to other suffering-focused positions called lexical views, no other values can matter more than reducing suffering (lexicality in theory of value is the idea that certain values trump others). These views, unlike the previous ones, are compatible with valuing positive things intrinsically. Nevertheless, on these views, reducing suffering should always take precedence over the promotion of these positive things.

Finally, there are moderate suffering-focused views. According to these views, the reduction of suffering is more important than the promotion of other values and the reduction of other disvalues, although the promotion of these values and the reduction of these disvalues is also very important.

Arguments in favor of suffering-focused ethics
Some philosophers have endorsed suffering-focused views because they consider that these are the only views that can solve some problems in the field of population ethics, such as the asymmetry. According to this asymmetry, there is no obligation to bring into existence an individual who we can expect to have a good life, but there is an obligation not to bring into existence an individual who we can expect to have a bad life. It is possible to account for this asymmetry by accepting that there is an obligation to create happy lives, or by accepting that there is no obligation not to create unhappy lives. However, both options, especially the latter, are highly counterintuitive. Nevertheless, given that on suffering-focused ethics avoiding the creation of suffering has precedence over the promotion of happiness, these views can provide a very intuitive solution to this problem.

Suffering-focused views also account for another widespread intuition, namely, that it is permissible not to benefit others but, instead, it is mandatory to avoid causing them to suffer. In particular, most people believe that it would be wrong to cause an unknown individual to enjoy some pleasure by causing another one to undergo a suffering that is only slightly lower in intensity or duration.

It is also argued that there is a qualitative asymmetry between happiness and suffering that warrants prioritizing suffering reduction: suffering is inherently urgent and in severe cases unbearably bad. In contrast, a neutral absence of pleasure or any other proposed intrinsic value does not constitute an urgent problem that needs to be immediately "relieved".

Another argument in favor of prioritizing the reduction of suffering would be that suffering, including extreme suffering, is present in massive amounts in the world and can be easily reduced, while bliss and extreme pleasure are much more scarce and hard to cause. This view finds precedents in the positions held by Buddhists and by 19th century philosophers.

title: Suffering-focused ethics


text:
in rags

Prepositional phrase

 * 1) Dressed in very old, torn clothes.
 * Like Cinderella, the girl in rags was swept off her feet by a handsome Prince Charming.
 * 1)  Very poor or lowly.
 * 2) * October 9 2007, Rory Carroll, The Guardian, "Cocaine galore! Villagers live it up on profits from 'white lobster'"
 * Some locals who used to be in rags live it up at posh hotels.

title: in rags


text:
Richard Garbe

Richard Louis Garbe (26 October 1876 – 28 July 1957) was a British sculptor.

Richard Louis Garbe was born in Dalston, London, on 26 October 1876, with a twin Franz Paul Garbe (1876–1954). He had been christened Louis Richard, but was known as Richard. His father was Gustave Garbe (1850–1919), a Prussian ivory carver. Richard studied at the Central School of Arts and Crafts as well as learning his father's trade. In 1892 and 1893 he was awarded prizes for his wood carvings by the Turners Company at their annual exhibition at the Mansion House.

He taught at Central School of Arts and Crafts (1899–1929) and was also Head of Sculpture at the Royal College of Art (1926–1946). He was elected an Academician at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1929 and full Academician in 1936. He exhibited regularly at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition from 1898 to 1957. In 1929 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal British Society of Sculptors, while in 1938 he was elected as the Master of the Art Workers' Guild.

His work is in many major collections, including the Tate. In the 1930s he produced ceramic sculptures for Royal Doulton.

Some of his major architectural work was Medieval Age and Modern Age for National Museum Cardiff, and in London his sculptures are on Five Kings House (formerly Thames House) by Southwark Bridge.

In 1908 he married Gertrude Julia Sabey (1879–1966) in Barnet. He had lived in Hornchurch and died on 28 July 1957 at Milton Way House, Westcott, Surrey, where he had lived from about 1933.

title: Richard Garbe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michail Baknanas

The result was   keep. Clear consensus for keeping following relisting. Renaming can be WP:BOLDly done. The Bushranger One ping only 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Michail Baknanas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

their is not enough information on this page and their is no sources used for this page Redsky89 (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Keep Coverage is pretty minimal, but exists. Frankly we'd do well to have more articles on minor historical figures like this and less on minor modern "celebraties" whose only claim to fame is the ability to edit a Wikipedia page on themselves... The sources now in the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (ec) an important personality of the Greek history - a street was named after him, a book was published about him. I tried to fix the article a bit, please, check. Sources added. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If he's the subject of a book, and there are additional sources about him, he's almost certainly notable, and there's certainly enough material to create an article. Most of the issues in the proposal should be fixed by editing, not by deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep it for the above reasons (a book, canonization and street in his name).  AshLey  Msg 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to "Michael Paknanas" which is easily sourced.  Gtstricky Talk or C 14:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
hot whiskey

Noun

 * 1) A drink consisting of a shot of whiskey, boiling water, brown sugar, and a slice of lemon with cloves.

Translations

 * Irish: uisce beatha te, fuisce te

title: hot whiskey


text:
User:Uwizeyiman

Uwizeyimana Jean de Dieu is Rwandese born 08 October 1994, in cyangugu prefecture,he grew up in village colled Munyove(Rwega) ,,nowadyz is in Giheke sector, Rusizi district, we he has six years old he attended in primary school  called RWAHI In 2000, he studied primary until 2008, In 2009 he attended in Groupe Scolaire St Bruno Gihundwe A, where he studed Ordinary Level Until 2011, in 2012 he atteded in school called COLLEGE DE NKANKA, where he studied Languages Program especially ENGLISH, KINYARWANDA, KISWAHILI In advanced level

title: User:Uwizeyiman