The result of the debate was Kept. Term is mentioned in target article. There is enough information at target to provide context. That's sufficient help as redirects are cheap. As for history restoration, a redirect discourages an article more effectively then a deleted page. Deleted pages get recreated all the time. -- JLaTondre 12:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters that do not appear in the character list do not need redirects, especially when their names contain a common English word that could disrupt search results Jay32183 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mentioned in the target article. Has been edited by multiple editors, thus showing a strong chance of recreation and showing that this is a likely search term. --- RockMFR 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strong chance of recreation is a great reason to delete, because it should not be recreated. There is no chance the character will ever meet the notability requirements, because there are no sources. It is not a likely search term and only mentioned in passing. Jay32183 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect terms do not have to be "notable". If information about a specific term or name exists in a single article, it is fine to create a redirect for it. Most redirection terms shouldn't meet our notability requirements - otherwise, they'd probably have their own articles. --- RockMFR 02:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the stuff in the history that might be restored that has the problem with notability, so keeping for potential restoration is a bad idea. The name being there and there being content is different. The redirect is meaningless because there is no helpful content. If anyone did search for it they would come to a page and have nothing to show for it. This name is only mentioned, there isn't any content that anyone would look for. Jay32183 02:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has an interesting log behind it: [1], almost certainly all pertaining to notorious troll User:Willy on Wheels. However, this redirect is useless. It was created as a ((deletedpage)), before sysops had the ability to stop page creation and keep it a redlink. The Evil Spartan 17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How could you nominate a page for deletion that redirects to an article about a paraplegic dog? For shame! :P But seriously, besides for WP:DENY, there's no reason to get rid of this. It really does seem like a likely search term. --- RockMFR 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Off-topic comment It gives a whole new meaning to "Willy on Wheels!" YechielMan 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR. Plausible search term. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible search term. Article name not likely to be needed for non-notable vandal. (SEWilco 16:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti-mormon is an LDS Church term and considered hate speech by non-mormons. Since the term is only used by the LDS Church and its members, Wikipedia should not being using it in place of an encyclopedia construct. We do not have a category called "books written by <denigrating ethic or racial slur>" that uses such a pejorative of hate or a racial slur, so this title is likewise inappropriate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Seems like much ado about nothing for the following reasons: (1) Commonality of term : it is not just an "LDS Church term"; individuals and groups that are not connected to the LDS Church use the term "anti-Mormon" to classify individuals or groups who publically declare manifest falsehoods about Mormonism; I personally know a non-LDS academic who uses the term in academic writing (2) It's offensiveness is not clear-cut: I don't think the majority of LDS or non-LDS would consider "anti-Mormon" to be a form of "hate speech" comparable to a "denigrating ethnic or racial slur". But even if "anti-Mormon" is in fact this "bad" of a term, most individuals who use it probably do not subjectively consider it to be hate speech. In all likelihood, he majority of LDS who use it would employ in the same sense that a Jew would use the term "anti-Semitism". (3) It is a useful redirect for LDS: Because of (2), most LDS individuals searching for this article would use the term "anti-Mormon" in the search—thus it is a useful redirect. (4) It is a useful rediret for non-LDS: There is an article entitled Anti-Mormonism, which could prompt non-LDS reader to search for a related list using the term "anti-Mormonism" or "anti-Mormon"—thus it is a useful redirect. (5) Conclusion: Subjective offensiveness is not a good reason to delete a redirect when the offensiveness is debateable (as I have shown) and the redirect is useful (as I have also shown)—see example on Dubya above here. -SESmith 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term is stated in LDS Doctrines to equate to anti-christ and its subject to the LDS Church or one of its members branding a book or group with this term. Wikipedia has no categories List of anti-Christ Publications unless those books specifically discuss the term anti-christ in the title or content as a topic of focus. It is unencyclopedic to allow an outside group to arbitrarily label sources, books, and the like in a non-neutral way and demand Wikipedia publish such a view as encyclopedic. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not being published under that term—it's a redirect to assist in searches. That's the whole point of redirects—to enable commonly-used terms to pop up when a person performs a search. Many people use the term, despite your subjective abhorrence of it. If it's useful to some people and only subjectively offensive (which this very debate proves), it's worth keeping. (2) I'm not really concerned about why you think as you do, but to be convincing you'll have to point me to the "LDS doctrines" that equate the terms you claim, because I do not believe this is the current position of the LDS Church. An individual may have expressed that opinion but that is very different from a "doctrine" that you apply to a religious body. -SESmith 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article uses the terminology "anti-mormon". Seems like a likely search term. Being non-neutral or non-PC is not a good reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Neutral, reliable sources such as the Salt Lake Tribune and New York Times use the term "anti-Mormon" in headlines and article text to describe certain types of opposition to LDS beliefs and people. Google search: "site:sltrib.com anti-mormon" or "site:nytimes.com anti-mormon". alanyst ^/talk/ 14:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As a non-Mormon, I was quite surprised that I apparently am not permitted to use the term anti-Mormon to describe words or actions that are anti-Mormon; I have used the term because it is quite appropriate. (The US Senate Majority leader and one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. President are both Mormons, and the term "anti-Mormon' shows up readily in searches. Google News shows 27 hits, all within the past month, with many in major publications on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Los Angeles Times, CBS News, The Economist, and The Guardian. Google itself has 176,000 hits.) The redirect is entirely appropriate, and the vehemence with which it is being contested is peculiar. Horologium t-c 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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