This seems like slang or jargon at best. There are other titles containing this word, and it seems like defaulting to search would be better in this case. There are 5 inward links, 3 of which are user pages. Mkcmkc (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the meaning at wiktionary is enlightening here - as an adjective, it means "following as a consequence"; as a noun, it means "a concomitant event or situation". So it's not "slang or jargon". The three user page links yield no context other than the word as an entry of a list of nouns. Looking at google searches for phrases including the word "concomitant" I find concomitant immunity as concomitant variation strong candidates for articles and concomitant injury as a plausible one (in fact, I have created a redlink in the target article when I adjusted the linking of a term). Dabify to encourage the writing of these articles. If this is not an appropriate use of a dab page, keep the redirect until a dab page can be properly created. B.Wind (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "slang or jargon" in the sense that most people in the world would not immediately assume that "Concomitant" (noun) refers to "Concomitant drugs". Nor should they. This would be like redirecting "residue" to "amino acid"--it makes a lot of sense in one particular context, but is misleading for readers in general. Also, a search for Dabify produces nothing--I have no idea what this is. Mkcmkc (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To dabify, in Wikipedia terminology, is to turn into a disambiguation (a.k.a. "dab") page. Also, note that "concomitant"'s primary use is that of an adjective, not a noun, and in this context, the above counterexample is an improper (and incorrect) analogy. Reading the target article might abate any confusion as to the use of the word in the term (as an adjective). B.Wind (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every bit as useless as a redirect from "drugs" to "concomitant drugs". Same principle, we don't redirect from a general term to a specialized use of it. DGG (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The Culpeper Star-Exponent is the name of a newspaper based in Culpeper, Virginia, but I don't think that the name of the newspaper should be redirected to the article of the city in which it is based as they are two completely different topics. It would almost be as if the title of a company is redirected to the article of the city in which its headquarters are located. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for the redirect to be worthy of keeping, there should be a mention of the newspaper in the Culpeper, Virginia article, at least. An addition of a "media" section in the the target would actually be the best plan of action here, for that would justify the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's the newspaper based in Culpeper, Virginia, and it also probably needs to be mentioned there. An addition of a "media" section in the Culpeper, Virginia article target would actually be the best plan of action here, for that would justify the redirect. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOLTC20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep and add information to the main article. We usually do this with not really notable local institutions that still are of some local importance. I very much doubt a newspaper in a town of 10,000 is likely to be considered notable--but of course, there's no reason not to try. (The main newspaper of a major university like U Va , on the other hand, generally is considered notable here.) DGG (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep all Very plausible typo; I'm sure I myself would use most of these edirects if I had to access this article a number of times, from forgetting the name.--Patton12314:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you forgot the name and you tried one of these edirects and they weren't redirected, wikipedia would come up with "Did you mean Khojaly Massacre?" and you would be fine. A redirected is unnecessary in this case. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no opinion on the others, but this one seems excessively POV, and is not commonly used outside of Wikipedia (hence an unlikely search term). Terraxos (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep plausible enough to me as someone unfamiliar with the language. Spelling redirectsare chea & should nto generally be removed unless they are actually misleading, or for some other specific reason. DGG (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
This redirect goes to a essay on complaints, and references shooting ones self. This is a reference to this article. BLP doing no harm being what it is, we should not be parading this living person's misfortune all over our wiki, making his last name into a joke, or essay regarding something negative. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the essay writer...considering the entire essay is predicated on "Don't shoot yourself". The entire essay came about as a side discussion on ANI that we needed a WP:PLAXICO to remind people that being the first one to complain to ANI doesn't mean you "win". Also, Plaxico is his first name...and I highly doubt my essay telling people that complaints to admin noticeboards in anyway harms Plaxico Burress. How does this redirect harm him? --Smashvilletalk04:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It pokes fun at his misfortune. It is directly in contravention of policy, states: The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Basically... it is just not the right thing to do. How does it bring him harm, I think it brings him undue attention, and I thought of him funnily when I saw it in this context. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
