The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Girlfriend. Rossami has fixed the template. -- JLaTondre 14:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first nomination, currently grandfathered at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Girlfriend, needs to be moved. Georgia guy (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? We have many thousands of these discussions from the old naming convention (and probably thousands more from even older archiving schemes). Why are you trying to move this one? Rossami (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 7th nomination has a template to all of the Afds and with the status quo, the 3rd nomination is linked to twice. Georgia guy (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like someone's gone a little code-happy on the template. Not only is it failing to pull in from the older locations but it's also pulling in irrelevant discussions just because the titles were similar. Give me a minute and I'll fix the template so it points to the correct locations. Rossami (talk)

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a neologism that does not appear to be in established use outside of the blog post that coins the term. I suggest deletion per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#OR. Muchness (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the edit history, content from prior versions of this page were merged into the target page. If that is the case, then we would generally have to keep this page in order to preserve the attribution history of the merged content (a requirement of GFDL). Keep pending an explanation of why that is not the case here. Rossami (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Successfully explained below. Rossami (talk)

  • I removed the material merged to blog prior to listing this RFD, because the content did not meet Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines per WP:NOT#OR, WP:V and WP:NEO – the sole source was a self-published post coining the phrase and there are no independent sources to suggest the term is in use outside the post. Preserving the redirect's edit history is not necessary in this case because the material is not present in (and shouldn't be added to) the article space, as it doesn't meet the aforementioned content policies. --Muchness (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspected that was the case. Thank you for confirming it. The contribution is still in the edit history. Are you and the other editors of the blog page sure that this content will never be resurrected? Rossami (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't speak for other editors, but considering that the content made no case for notability and was sourced to one post that does not meet WP's standards for verifiable, reliable sourcing, I cannot see the content being added back to the article in its current wording. If you'll pardon the crystal-balling, at some future point, the term "slog" may gain sufficiently widespread usage and coverage in reliable independent sources that it warrants coverage per WP:NEO. If and when this happens, interested parties can write appropriately sourced encyclopedic content; if such a scenario occurs I would say that a complete rewrite is more likely than a resurrection of this content. --Muchness (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has apostrophes in both sides. This is just for emphasis making it an implausible typo. Many similars cases t that have been nominated for deletion ans successfully deleted Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Delete there is absolutely no reason why it needs apostrophes. Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected to Capital of Korea. John Reaves 09:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This problematic page was PRODded by me, as it was completely redundant, then an IP editor turned it into a redirect to Seoul. Since Pyongyang is also the capital of the other Korea though, it doesn't make sense as a redirect and it's not that likely a search term - I just say delete here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It sounds like serious POV because there are two capital cities, possibly from a one-Korea advocate. Tong-gyul!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate Capital of Korea, a more likely search term, also points to Seoul. I'd recommend turning capital of Korea into a disambiguation and pointing capitals of Korea there. It might look like this: --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The capital of Korea can refer to

  • Pyongyang, capital of North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
  • Seoul, capital of South Korea (Republic of Korea)

• Is it even a necessary disambiguation page? I can't think of any countries that are divided in the same way as Korea is and still exist today with full international recognition of two sovereign states (like how Yemen used to be), but it's interesting to note that Capital of England, Capital of France and Capital of Germany are all redirects - so I presume this is standard practice in these cases, but it becomes problematic in this unique and unusual case.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Disambiguate per above, for the benefit of readers who want to know what is the capital of Korea. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was editor is fixing? John Reaves 09:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could not be more wrong. The Mediterranean Grand Prix was a Formula One motor race held in the 1950s and 1960s. The Valencia Street Circuit is a Spanish racing circuit on which the 2008 European Grand Prix will be held. This race is not, nor ever has been, known as the Mediterranean Grand Prix, and is completely unrelated to the original event. There is no article on the Mediterranean Grand Prix, but there are red links here and there. As it stands, this redirect is meaningless and misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The content on this old version of the page would seem to indicate that your information above might be incomplete - that this might be a revival of the name for a new race (but also apparently unrelated to the current redirect target). Regardless, if either the old or the new race meets our recommended inclusion criteria and if you have enough sources to write an encyclopedic article on the topic, just overwrite the redirect with the new content. You do not need to delete the redirect from pagehistory to start an article. Rossami (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The source on that old version of the page contradicts what the editor has written in that there's no mention of a revival of the 'Mediterranean Grand Prix' name, and I've never seen this new race referred to as anything but the European Grand Prix. But I much appreciate your comments, I will attempt to find out enough to put a reasonable article together on the Mediterranean Grand Prix. Cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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