The result of the debate was retarget to Freemasonry. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unlikely search term. "Blue Lodge Freemasonry" is incorrect; Blue Lodge itself refers to Freemasonry already, and a Google search indicates this, because despite searching for the string, it is not returned as a whole phrase. The usage of Blue Lodge also does not refer specifically to the degrees, but to the Grand Lodge/Orient administered bodies that confer the first three degrees, which would include the three degrees as administered by the those few jurisdictions that use the Scottish Rite working. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - term is in first line of targeted section. While Blue Lodge by itself is the appropriate term, "Blue Lodge Freemasonry" is a plausible redundancy similar in form to "ATM machine". It is not confusing and user-friendly for those who are not as familiar with terms about Freemasonry as others (and I most definitely fit into the former category). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply - OK, I'll buy that. However, I do think the redirect is still too specific - "Blue Lodge" encompasses everything to do with the part of Freemasonry that administers the first three degrees, and I've never seen or heard it used to refer only to the degrees. Would a repoint to Freemasonry itself work? MSJapan (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MSJ's last request makes sense to me... Repoint to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem with redirecting if it's more useful. JASpencer (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, Retarget to Freemasonry if that's more appropriate. Seems a plausible search term even if it's technically incorrect. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 17:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply - Redirect retargeted to "Freemasonry". Someone can close this out. MSJapan (talk) 14:35, 2 October 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. Wizardman 01:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless redirect, assumes that The Tribe is the only TV series ever made.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious delete. Series 1 (1999) can go too --Rumping (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - targets may soon follow if no one bothers to put some work into them (all three series articles have longstanding issue tags on them, and none of them have any real context; the List of The Tribe seasons overview article isn't even a list. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per anon. Deletion rationale made me laugh, by the way. JuJube (talk) 08:50, 30 September 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. WJBscribe (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not needed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MediaWiki automatically forwards between uniform initial capitalisation variants (all initial minor and All Initial Caps). Everyme 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No they don't. Note that, say, Brent mason is a red link when Brent Mason isn't. This is a valid redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not. It's a personal name, and it will under no conceivable circumstances ever be spelt and linked to as Brent mason. And for the other case, where someone enters "brent mason" (or "Brent mason", for that matter) into Wikipedia search and hits go, MediaWiki will automatically redirect to Brent Mason. It is not a valid redirect. Everyme 00:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is potentially useful (though the potential use is not great), and there's no reason to delete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not useful at all. Everyme 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a highly plausible typographical error. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One that would have to be corrected in the link, at any rate. Everyme 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see why Brent mason or Chek whyte would be linked as such. If they are I think the person would be smart enough to capitalize it (AGF). Plus the java dropdown menu means these are now useless. Wizardman 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible typo, what harm does it do? JASpencer (talk) 16:55, 4 October 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. Wizardman 18:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page contains trivia. The only page containing the redirect link was on List of Ohio State University people. —JonTerry4 16:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nobody is going to search for such a long title, and the link can be piped (|) on the article. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - improper title; no one will enter his sports history and graduation date as a search item. Target article is in serious need of cleanup (but this note is actually beside the point of the discussion). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 21:27, 2 October 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 G3 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't mention of the term in the target page. David Pro (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Vandalism redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:09, 28 September 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. Wizardman 18:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable neologism that is a thinly veiled attack on Obama by creating a portmanteau between Obama and Communism. The creator being a conservative republican for McCain does not fill me with great hope either. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it's notable enough for a redicrect with 25,100 google hits, none on the first page are from Wikipedia. JASpencer (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a clear neologism. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of those hits are for commercial products like T-shirts, or they are blatantly POV from detractors or blogs. The last hit on page 1, BTW, is Wikipedia. The usage, therefore, does not seem to appear in mainstream media outlets. All the above point to neologism, or at the very least, a pop culture fad that will disappear after the upcoming election. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not need blatantly POV redirects. Notability is not temporary. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND STATE. Everyme 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect that is both a neologism and a portmanteau that is not supported by reliable sources - virtually all of the significant Google hits are from the blogosphere. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 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. The YTP guy in me is sad, but i'll make him repeat 3 second clips over and over to entertain him. Wizardman 01:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More YouTube Poop cruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per description. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:02, 28 September 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. Wizardman 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible nonsense redir. David Pro (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Legitimate redirect, "shit faced" is indeed slang for drunkenness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not, in fact, nonsense. Shit faced is but one of the many lovely possible dysphemisms for drunken revelry. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, is completely true, "shit faced" does indeed mean drunk. JayKeaton (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is legitimate (to a point; there are different ways to write it, and this one gets its first hit off Urban Dictionary), but as you need to know the real term to know the meaning of this term, I think the redir is unnecessary. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on that last comment, you do not actually need to know the meaning to look it up. You may here someone say it, or read it or hear it on a TV show and not understand what it means, so you would look it up, and you would expect them to be redirected to an article about inebriation. JayKeaton (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "methinks we doth expect too much" - I highly doubt that WP is going to be the first point of reference to find the meaning of the term. Most TV shows don't use it because it's one of those words you can't say on TV, and I can't imagine anyone who's in the position to be or encounter one who is isn't going to be able to figure it out without our help. So I'm still not convinced of the utility of the redirect. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to prevent a vandalism page being created at the title three or four times a week by bored high school kids. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while the expression in quotation marks doesn't generate many Google hits, it has been repeatedly used in literature and recordings, not the least by George Carlin. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - At least where I'm from it's a fairly common term. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, redirects are cheap and this does seem to have one distinct meaning that could plausibly be searched for. Indeed, "shitfaced" is a pretty common term for "extremely drunk" here in the UK. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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