The result of the debate was Re-target to Religion in Armenia#Christianity which does discuss the topic`. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian Apostolic Church may be the largest Christian church in Armenia, but it is not the only Christian church there (see Armenian Catholic Church, Armenian Evangelical Church, for example). Until such time as an actual article on Christianity in Armenia is written, it is preferable to have a red link than this misleading (and non-NPOV!) redirect. —Angr 09:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is generally not a good idea to redirect a general topic to a specific one. Had it been reversed, the redirect would have been a plausible one. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly non-NPOV... in a somewhat discreet way. Firebat08 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 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) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to an old wikiproject, does not link to content, not worth retargeting. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given above.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:47, 8 November 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure CNR to a old discussion that is no longer in current use, unlikely target and not retargetable. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is where that old discussion took place. (This was back when subpages were still thought to be a useful way to organize some parts of the project.) Discussions like this are part of the project's history and should be preserved. This redirect also fails to create confusion. No reader is going to follow a "rules to consider" sublink expecting to find anything except the Wikipedia page. Rossami (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag with ((R with old history)). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 01:13, 15 November 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect to a category that is more a tracking category than a content category. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because this redirect helps to preserve the record of the pagemoves and merges that ultimately resulted in the category. Redirects of "list of" articles to the category which superseded them are common. Rossami (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag with ((R with old history)). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (t·c·r) 01:13, 15 November 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 per this CFD. The CFD decided the category title should not include the term midget and this redirect effectively bypasses that consensus. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather inappropriately titled CNR to a category. Categorization of people requires a high level of support to label people in this manner. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Create List of actors with dwarfism from contents of the target category and retarget the redirect to it. Additional redirects like List of midget actors will be needed. Include in the new list article anything that turns up in the Wikipedia search of "midget actor" (without quotation marks) that might not be in the category, and place the new article in the category in question. Essentially, this is a dabification. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The suggestion of deleting this page amounts to this: instead of educating people on apropriate use of terms by taking them to a page that uses said apropriate term... wikipedia will just not find the information they're looking for... this is politically correct nonsense. It would be one thing if the list or category actually fell under the name of this page... but it´s just a simple redirect, you can redirect to whatever apropriate page you like but donñt get rid of it. How particular are we going to be here. If this page is removed then I demand the pages Oriental, Wetback, and Nigger be removed as well.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your general sentiments (hence my recommendation above), but I am also obliged to point out that WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting (never mind midget wrestling). Retargeting to a list article is really the best way to go here as it removes a CNR and maintains a link to an appropriate list of pertinent wikilinks (which a category page does without the technicality of actually having content). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oriental, Wetback (slur), and Nigger are all articles. So, for that matter, is Midget. What we are discussing here is not an article, it's a redirect from article space to a category. Redirects across namespace are generally a Bad Thing, and this is no exception. Delete. —Angr 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're conflating two seperate arguments I made. Oriental, Wetback (slur), and Nigger may be articles... but they are also objectional... it is a seperate argument from my statment that this page is "just a redirect". My statement about how the redirect educates people is a third seperate argument.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So all that's needed, then, is an appropriate target for the redirect, not a CNR. Midget would not be one as the phrase could equally pertain to actors (are they height-challenged people who are also actors, or actors who are height-challenged people? While this is the intersection of two equally-important sets, a valid redirect cannot point at both at the same time). So, it needs to be either retargeted to an appropriate list article (B.Wind's suggestion is a possibility) or deleted. I tend to lean toward the list article as the more useful. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 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) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of PIE roots in Proto-Indo-European root does not exist any more, so the redirect makes no sense (reason number 4, if I'm not mistaken). The list seems to have been moved to Wiktionary. By the way, the same applies for the other redirects discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-European root word articles except Yu-1 and Yu-2. I am going to nominate these as well if no objections turn up here. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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