The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a wikiproject, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete uncyclopedic, no value. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely CNR that points to non-content, does not have history to keep. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect stressing self-importance of the project, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 08:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely CNR, no major incoming links, does not redirect to content. MBisanz ^talk 08:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a cross-namespace-redirect! abf /talk to me/ 11:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, XNR. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 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The result of the debate was N/A. Converted to a stub so RFD is no longer applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been created as a joke/pun. Since it is technically a legal term and no article has been written about this subject yet, it should either be redirected to Wage or simply deleted. Eastlaw (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is legally significant and you know a bit about it I suggest you turn this into a stub article, although even changing the redirect to Wage might be better than deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and do this myself. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment...this is a rather common nickname for Vegas. Just saying. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as redirect to Las Vegas, seems to be a common name. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have moved the stub article to the correctly capitalized Lost wages so the redirect now points there. Which rather moots this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 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 Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. The redirect is most likely of a vandal/troll nature, and portrays rape as humorous. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=raep Opencents (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep likely misspelling, rtansposition of hte last tow cahracters. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very like misspelling, just because it's also a slang term is no reason to delete...in fact it makes it even more important to keep. NPOV does not apply to redirects, they are there to help prevent users finding "search results 1 to 20 for...", which is exactly what this does.--Patton123 16:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep highly plausible spelling typo. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible misspelling. — neuro^{IT'S MY BIRTHDAY!} 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible misspelling. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible misspelling. 98.201.39.129 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until somebody finds an organization or something else that justifiably turns RAEP into a blue link that's not a redirect, whereupon it should redirect there instead. (I shan't bother to go into minutiae; what happens if there's ever an article on RaEp, etc.; figure it out for yourselves.) Incidentally, the user nominating this for deletion has a very short and undistinguished history of "contributions", and one that shows a remarkable fascination with redirects. -- Hoary (talk) 03:45, 7 December 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 Kept. In addition to the GFDL issue, redirects from "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" where Foo is a dab page are standard. We even have a bot that creates them. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this page has been merged with Marat. PatGallacher (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC) I add that nothing except talk pages direct here, although I am aware that does not clinch it. PatGallacher (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose content has been merged to Marat by PatGallacher (editedit). The GFDL requires keep. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why the GFDL requires "keep". If this is so, then it could help us wasting time by nominating pages. PatGallacher (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read Wikipedia:Merge#Performing the merger, which tells you what the entire merger process is, without listing deletion as a step at any point, and which explains in boldface which section of the GFDL has particular relevance here (although §4(J) is also relevant). Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uncle G is correct that we must keep the page history in order to comply with the GFDL. However, I would vote to keep in any case; redirects from Foo (disambiguation) to the actual disambigation page for the topic "Foo" generally benefit the project and do no injury, even when the target is just the shorter Foo with the disambiguation text omitted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gavia immer. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to save the history, then Delete the resulting double redirect. I honestly don't care where it is moved to think a sysop should move it over a (non)existing redirect, and a Dummy edit is all the GFDL needs to continue compliance in this case. --Thinboy00 @110, i.e. 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC

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