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) 16:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kobe time → Kobe Bryant  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete not mentioned at the current article. It's also vague, my first thought would be referring to "Time in Kobe" (eg: similar to Time in Indiana). -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and since I'm now a bit hungry. Steel1943 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Like Tavix, I would have thought it meant a time zone. Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the above arguments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too equivocal of a redirect and nor does the word "Kobe time" have any substantial relation with Kobe Bryant. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 13:02, 14 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.

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) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ciudadehouston.org → Houston  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete, not an official website of Houston (if it is even a website at all?). There's no mention in the article and I fail to see any significance of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not appear to be a website. Currently down and archive.org doesn't have a copy of it. For similar flavour, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 24#Berlin-ru.net. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this redirect name was misspelled. It should be ciudaddehouston.org which is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.ciudaddehouston.org - "Ciudad de Houston" means "City of Houston" in Spanish and there are large numbers of Spanish speakers in Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ciudad de Houston" means "City of Houston" in Spanish and there are large numbers of Spanish speakers in Houston. That's an argument for Ciudad de Houston to redirect to Houston, not for the website (even if correctly spelled) to do the same. It's not mentioned on the target article and likely doesn't belong there per Wp:WEIGHT. It might (or might not) be worth a mention on whatever department of the government of Houston actually runs that site. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The correctly-spelled website actually does 301 to an official Houston government website, but redirects from unregistered website typos are problematic because of the potential future problem of some shady typosquatter registering it. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing at best since the target article doesn't describe the website in question (if it exist at all) --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:09, 10 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.

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) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:TLYM1.jpg → File:To Love You More.jpg  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect to non-free content, seemingly unused? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete bad filename -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or command? --BDD (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing at best. On its own, it looks like a bunch of letters that can pertain to anything.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:36, 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Criticism of psychology → Psychology#Criticism  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:REDLINK. There's no longer a criticism section at the target article. Criticism of science is too broad, and Criticism of evolutionary psychology is too narrow. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: The link is no longer broken. I have repaired the section anchor that was missing from the Psychology article. Jarble (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For reference, that's Psychology#Contemporary issues in methodology and practice. There's some information about criticism there, but still less than I think this redirect suggests to a reader. Better to have an article, or a dedicated criticism section that could be spun off into one, I think. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: The section used to be called Criticism, but someone changed the section's title and moved some of its contents into other sections of the same article. It is still a dedicated criticism section, despite the change of its title. Jarble (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even purport to be comprehensive, though, since it only covers 1959 and beyond. Where could a reader find criticism of Freud and psychoanalysis, for example? --BDD (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the fixed target does seem to be where the discussion of criticism of psychology currently lives. I thought this might have been a renamed LarrysText redirect (c.f. PhilosophyOfPerception) but it doesn't seem to be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think we would have an entire article at this title. bd2412 T 00:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to discourage creation of a POV fork. Creating a "Criticism of" article is far more complex and difficult than creation of a typical red link. I'd suggest tagging with {{R with possibilities}} so that more experienced users can find this if and when there are sources to support such an article. --NYKevin 20:27, 16 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.

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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wave 4 → Windows Live#Wave 4  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The existing target is clearly not the primary meaning, because we have more equally eligible targets:

• Transformers: Prime (toy line) § Wave 4
• Transformers: Generations § Wave 4
• Ben 10 (toy line) § Wave 4
• Wolverine and the X-Men (toyline) § Wave 4 - July 2009
• Thor: The Mighty Avenger (toy line) § Wave 4 - June 2011
• See more...

Also, the view statistics are pretty poor. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• dabify per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:XY, let the search engine take care of it (as Codename Lisa has proved is possible).

In this sense, the meaning of "wave" is analagous to "chapter" or "issue" or version", and e.g. "Chapter 4" ( → Chapter Four) is a DAB listing just a few things that have a more specific, notable meaning, not an exhaustive DAB of every article that has a section about Chapter 4 of a given publication; "Issue 4" and is "Version 4" are red. I see no value of a DAB that, in essence, just codifies search results. Same with #Wave 3, below. Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added the section link into the nomination, and without prejudice rcatte'd as {{R to section}}. The target has a hatnote for Wave 3 but not Wave 4. We discussed Wave 2, starting October 20, the result was retarget to Second Wave, but we don't have a Fourth Wave or Fourth wave or 4th Wave or 4th wave or IVth Wave or IVth wave to do the same by analogy. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per nom. Things that aren't properly called "wave 4" would not be listed there, regardless of what is a valid synonym; that's not what dab pages are for. For examples, see the various "line #" dabs (line 1, line 2, line 3, etc). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - wave 1 and wave 5 don't exist, but wave 2 and wave 3 do. The term has many uses from video games ("waves" meaning more or less a fixed number of enemies to arrive at a certain time) to any of the others described at wave (disambiguation). Second Edition, Third edition, etc. have the same problem for that matter. I don't favor disambiguation in this case, but it may be the way to go.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @BDD: your wish is my commandent. Created DAB at Draft:Wave 4, though I don't think it offers much advantage over just using the search engine. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 10 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Although there is no consensus whether monastery or convent is the best target, the discussion below demonstrated that both are viable targets, and redirecting to either target would be far better than deletion or disambiguation. Default to keeping existing target. Deryck C. 18:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nunnery → Monastery  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Re-target to Convent. A nunnery is unambiguously a religious community of females; in modern usage, "convent" has come to mean the same, though convent had other meanings in the past. Kelly ^hi! 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Convent since a cited mention explains why nunnery should redirect there --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above._{struck by Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)} Would be right in thinking a monastery is purely male? Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I am mistaken, the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of monastery includes nuns. We could DAB it with a hatnote per WP:TWODABS, but I don't see the need. Si Trew (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to convent and monastery. Just because Christian nunneries are convents, does not mean we should solely use that as a basis -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a non-Christian nunnery? Aren't nuns excusively Christian? Si Trew (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to nun; they are not exclusively Christian. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Monastery explains it better. Convent could probably be merged into that article without much work. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and definitely do not disambiguate per WP:DABCONCEPT. This is a broad term, not an ambiguous term. As described in the articles, Convent is merely a subtopic of Monastery; we do not disambiguate between topics and their own subtopics. bd2412 T 19:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget per nom. Regardless of technical definitions, in common language, a convent is a house of nuns. Both articles link to each other and explain the terminology, so I'm not especially concerned about confusion here. We might as well go with the common terms. When Hamlet said "Get thee to a nunnery", I'm pretty sure the idea was what we'd call a convent. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 16 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kitschiness → Kitsch  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

totally made up word. Zero hits Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think you might have misspelled your search; I get 1720 GBooks hits. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid alternative search term; intuitive construction from the common "kitschy" —Swpb^talk 15:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep wikt:kitschiness indicates the word exists, so not made up. Google turns up many hits, so I don't know what you're referring to. Which search engine are you using for hits? This is a redirect from an alternate word for or allied term for the topic of the target, so a valid redirect -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - When a term is used, with total seriousness, in a Wall Street Journal news article, it probably is a legitimate word. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:30, 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.

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:Drmies. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tackinesses → Kitsch  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

made up word, zero hits Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletionisationologically - recently created implausible search term. It is unlikely to refer to any target other than this one, but it's also only been used 4 times in the last 60 days. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 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.

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:Drmies. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Inflammationally → Inflammation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

fake word. zero hits on Google Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with Inflammational per nom. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - implausible search term. It was hit 15 times on the day it was created, and only twice since. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 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.

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 disambiguate Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Coridon → Charles-Édouard Coridon  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A search of this name/word turns up lots of stuff but other then Wikipedia, nothing about a football player. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Coridon&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR02 Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate The uses that predominate in Google Books are mostly for characters in old plays and folksongs, e.g. Il pastor fido or Coridon and Parthenia, or partial matches for the butterfly species Polyommatus coridon . It was also a nickname of Johannes Glauber and also of Adriaen van der Cabel (though not mentioned on the latter's article). Certainly the footballer could be mentioned on a disambiguation page, but (like so many other {{R from surname}} or {{R from given name}}s) he clearly is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either by long term significance or usage, and the redirect interferes with readers' effort to find Wikipedia content on other Coridons. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as proposed. bd2412 T 19:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Be BOLD and just do it (which I now have done). GiantSnowman 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The play and the butterfly are only partial-title matches and belong in a See also section. But it sounds like there's warrant for other entries. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the aboves -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per above findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 15:11, 10 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.

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 Katie. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaytie → Hubert Selby Jr: It/ll Be Better Tomorrow  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Very strange redirect. Just delete, there are many women with this name Legacypac (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no one notable with the name. Search results are better here because several articles have a "Kaytie" mentioned trivially (like the current target). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Katie, as a highly plausible alternative spelling to that name, being a phonetic equivalent. bd2412 T 18:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete with Tavix. I think consensus is that an R to a target that doesn't mention it is WP:RFD#D2 confusing, which would be the case if we redirected to Katie. For example, Kathie and Cathie are phonetic equivalents but have separate DABs; Caty and Catie are red. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easily resolved by adding whatever "Kaytie" mentions exist in Wikipedia to Katie. bd2412 T 21:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Retarget to Katie as {{R from misspelling}}. Certainly plausible, the y and the t are right next to each other on a QWERTY, and someone already felt the need to create it. If there are enough Kayties to make a dab page, then do that instead. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the one I posted are created by Neelix, along with 80,000 other often useless redirects. See ANi. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the ANI thread and the other threads about Neelix, but as of at least now, "was created by Neelix" is not a criterion for deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Katie per BD2412 and Ivanvector above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REtarget to Katie as {{R from alternate spelling}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 10 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kayte → Kayte Christensen  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

far too many Kayte's in the world to point to this woman Legacypac (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as a {{R from given name}}. When there's only one person on Wikipedia with a certain given name, it is redirected to that person. In this case, it could be a misspelling for Katie, so I'll add a hatnote. If another "Kayte" becomes notable, then a name index would be created. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Kate (given name). This is a highly plausible alternative spelling of "Kate" due to its phonetic equivalence. There is also a Kayte Walsh redirect (to husband Kelsey Grammer). bd2412 T 19:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and hatnote per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Retarget per bd2412. Without prejudice, I've added it to Kayte (given name). Steel1943's suggestion of a hatnote might be worth doing at the new target. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. It could equally be a misspelling for "kate" and for "katie", both due to proximity to other letters and due to phonetic similarity, so it's not sensible to retarget to either one of those pages over the other. But Kayte Christensen is an exact first-name match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Kayte Walsh may complicate and weaken my rationale. I do think given the complexity of the variations of "Katherine" (Katrina Richardson, anyone?), that a name index might be warranted. I've drafted one below the redirect. I'm not sure if I prefer it over a straight keep, but it's an option to consider. I will add, that I thought "Kayte" was equivalent to Katie: (kay-te). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering about that. I read it as "kate" but I can see how "kay-tee" is possible too. I don't think a first name anthroponymy page is warranted for two people, one of whom is a redirect, and I don't think the hatnote treatment works here either. Hrm. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• All Kate/Katie/Kayte/Kaytee/Caty have the same origin. Why not just merge them all together at whatever variation is most common? bd2412 T 01:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Because they're still different names. Since they're similar though, linking them with see-alsos is a good solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one that I have seen, the DAB at Katie, has a "related names" in the infobox which serves this purpose. (I think that technically info in the infobox should be in the running text too, but c'mon...) Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• REtarget to Kate (given name) as {{R from alternate spelling}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not an alternative spelling. This is a valid correct spelling for a couple people. This needs to either be kept of turned into an index to reflect that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative spelling is not incorrect; it is merely alternative. bd2412 T 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not for whoever has that name. "Kate Christensen" would be an incorrect spelling for Kayte Christensen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the purpose of the article. Is it merely to list people with the name, "Kate", or is it to inform people of the history and popularity of the name, which would include the history of branching off into various spellings (comparable to Smith (surname)). bd2412 T 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, it would cover both, but for "Kayte," we're limited to basically a list of people with the name because we don't have sources covering the name any more than that. We can include see-alsos to names that look and sound similar (eg: Kate, Katy), but without sources connecting the names, it's basically an assumption and a violation of WP:OR. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:55, 10 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.

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 Drmies. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good order → Horae  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Another pointless redirect using as couple common words. NO evidence this should point to the target or anything else. Legacypac (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - confusing. I considered a very weak possibility of retargeting to peace, order, and good government but it's not specific enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and confusing --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:45, 10 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.

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 gathering place. Closing early as obvious. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The place of gathering → Ecbatana  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

this is just an English phrase with no clear tie to the target, part of a mass creation of redirects Legacypac (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to gathering place. Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perfect, DONE Legacypac (talk) 12:51, 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.

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:Drmies. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The History → The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

How the heck can we decide that The History refers to one book? Legacypac (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:SURPRISE. Special:Search with "prefix:The History"]] gives, as one might expect, loads of entries: let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons. (vague redirect is vague) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 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.

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) 15:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Max Ed → Ed Berrier  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

implausible typo or partial name Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 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.

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. (Sounds like a hockey line to me.) --BDD (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph-Francois-Louis-Charles → Joseph-François-Louis-Charles de Damas  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

implausible typo - with dashes? Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as {{R from title without diacritics}} (and {{R from short name}}). Joseph-François-Louis-Charles, with the cedilla in "françois", has same target. According to French Wikipédia, his full name was apparently Joseph-François-Louis-Charles-César, comte de Damas d'Antigny, duc de Damas (but we don't do honorifics). Nothing wrong with the hyphens. Si Trew (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep per Si Trew. Normally I'd say {{R from given name}}s are the spawn of the devil because they interfere with searching on people who get mentioned in other articles but lack their own articles (and who are invariably more notable than some random athlete by the same name who got a Wikipedia article first solely due to "automatic notability" and mass substub-creation), but this one seems sufficiently unique that it's unlikely to refer to anything else. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Charles Philip Arthur George → Charles, Prince of Wales, for example. (Perhaps surprisingly, Philip Charles Arthur George, the name his fiancée gave at his first wedding, is red.) Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Si. I find it somewhat likely that there are other French people who have been named Joseph-François-Louis-Charles in history, but no others we have articles about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ST -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 10 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.

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 Human subject research. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Human study → Humanities  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

implausible typo Legacypac (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the first thing that came to my mind (which also seems predominant in GNews hits for "human study") is a medical study on humans (i.e. in vivo as opposed to in vitro, and on humans rather than animal testing), but I can't find a great target for this, maybe human subject research. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's in silico study, too, i.e. computer simulations. (also in situ but less relevant.) Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to human subject research —Swpb^talk 15:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Undone. I see no consensus for this yet. I had been thinking of anatomy and human body as possible targets, and anthropology, anthropometry and psychology, and would like to see others' opinions. Perhaps we should 'convert to disambiguation page. Si Trew (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an organization? http://www.ispoint.org/human-study Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that would be at Human Study. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 10 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.

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 I'm delighted to see that {{R from gerund}} exists. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Slutting → Slut  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is not the urban dictionary, and the word is something men might do as an activity, not the person who is a slut. Oh that sounds wrong. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK? Retarget to Prostitution#Etymology and terminology? I'm only guessing at the meaning. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Slut" can be used as a verb, meaning (per wikt:slut#Verb) to behave as a slut. This redirect is correct. bd2412 T 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - bd2412 is right. "Slutting" can refer to the other thing, but as slang, and usually not on its own. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per bd2412 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it would be helpful if the target were expanded to include sourced discussion of the word's use as a verb, since it is not immediately obvious what a verb formed from a noun means (possibilities discussed at verbification include "to use a [noun]", "to cause someone else to act as a [noun]", etc.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a cite showing a notable use of "slutting". I am not sure how we would show the process of verbification. bd2412 T 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Totally plausible and useful redirect. sst✈^discuss 16:36, 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.

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 Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• South Shore Lake Tahoe → South Lake Tahoe, California  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

this is not the name of the city and no evidence it is called this. Weird. Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "South shore" is a common nickname for the region around South Lake Tahoe, California. In fact, the slogan for the Tahoe Daily Tribune (the local newspaper) is "Serving the South Shore of Tahoe." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw I'll update the nickname in the target. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 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.

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 Indian. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indianness → Native American identity in the United States  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This term refers to India Indian identity, can't find an appropriate article but this is not it. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing. At best, we could retarget to the dab at Indian which lists the numerous groups outside the United States who may be referred to by that possibly offensive moniker or who have been throughout history, but none of those are really good targets for "indianness". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Indian. I get over 1,400 Google Books hits for the phrase "the Indianness of India". bd2412 T 21:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for analogies, and Britishness is an article, Irishness → Culture of Ireland, [[-r|Welshness}} → Culture of Wales, Scottishness → Scottish national identity, Englishness → English national identity, and Frenchness → DAB at French.

Indian national identity is red and Indian nation is no good as it → Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

So I weakly suggest retarget to Culture of India, but Indian is fine by me too.Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Struck by Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • North American Indians have a much higher Google Books hit rate than that for India Indians. [1] over 3000 hits -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or weak disambiguate this refers to Native American-ess [2], with such as blood quota, authenticity, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. we're forgetting West Indianness/West Indian-ness, too (but I guess that is never called just "indianness"). Just to rule it out, Indianess in a gsearch seems to be always to be a misspelling and not, as I guessed, an old-fashioned word meaning "female adult [American] Indian", along the lines of Jewess, Negress, etc. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Indian, which is a disambiguation that links to any article this might refer to. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DONE per Tavix Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 15 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.