The result of the discussion was retargeted to Meiji period per consensus (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the earlier discussion of Heisei 20. Meiji 3 is the name of a year in the Japanese calendar. However, the Japanese calendar is only equivalent to the Gregorian beginning in 1873 (Meiji 6); prior to that reform, a purely lunar calendar was used. Consequently, this redirect is not strictly correct, though it's in the right vicinity. Redirecting to Japanese calendar, which at least explains what this is, would also not be useful, because it contains essentially no information on the year in question. It is probably best to delete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, not sure about deletion. While not technically correct, it does seem like a somewhat plausible search term. The article Meiji period has a chart at the bottom of the page correlating Meiji years to western calendar years, which correlates 1870 to Meiji 3. This raises the question: Out of the 45 years of the Meiji period, why does only Meiji 3 have such a redirect? There are no incoming links. Perhaps there was one at one time and it was redirected. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain why this specific redirect was created, especially in light of the lack of other Meiji redirects. I've asked the redirect creator to comment here if he wishes. I suppose it might be reasonable to redirect this to Meiji period, but that chart is currently the only mention of Meiji 3 in the whole article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Meiji period as that explains what the term is. PaulJones (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with PaulJones above. Retarget to Meiji period. I found seven references to the exact phrase "Meiji 3" in Wikipedia, so it's possible someone may search for that phrase. Meiji period would be a more meaningful redirect than 1870. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Meiji period, as this redirect is not strictly accurate as it is. Terraxos (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. As nobody has yet seen fit to add anything about the phrase to any of the articles mentioned in this discussion, there's no point in keeping the redirect. The redirect may be recreated once this is done; if more than one article talks about it, a dab page would be suitable as well.--Aervanath (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. WildlifeAnalysis (talk · contribs) wrote on Talk:Yo Dawg that "Redirecting this to his page does not explain the "yo dawg" phenomenon, since it is not mentioned on his page. Either add it to his page or put that content here. A redirect is, until then, unqualified." Cunard (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly change target to Pimp My Ride. Apparently "Yo dawg" has become something of an internet meme among admirers of Xzibit and the show Pimp My Ride. A Google search for "xzibit yo dawg" turned up 24,000+ hits, of which the first five pages (50 links) all appeared to be related to this saying by Xzibit. It seems that at the end of a show on Pimp My Ride, Xzibit often says something like "Yo dawg, I heard you like xxx..." For an explanation, see [1] and [2]. I agree with Cunard that someone ought to write this up on the Xzibit page or the Pimp My Ride page. •••Life of Riley (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify as there is at least one additional valid target - Randy Jackson, who uses this greeting often on the television show American Idol to the point of making it his greeting. There may be other people who prominently and repeatedly use this phrase. B.Wind (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we come up with any citations for this? Maybe he originated the phrase and Xzibit spread it around. •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limiting myself to reliable sources, how about [3] to start? Actually, some not-so-reliable sources are referring to this as an Internet meme (I'm not sure about that), but he does say it at least once in every episode of Anerican Idol. Perhaps someone with the DVD set can verify it and cite it. (I haven't had the time to check for the "Yo, dog" variation, unfortunately). B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems to be meaningless, reason for its creation is unclear. —Snigbrook 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsensical entry. A search for kingfot on Google on turns up nothing meaningful. It seems to be someone's e-mail user name in Singapore. The author also seems be from Singapore, judging by his contributions. •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - implausible search term. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete G3 redirect resulting from page-move vandalism

The article G was moved to Mujeh se in 2006, and the move was reverted but the redirect was not deleted – I don't know if the redirect means anything or it it was just created as a result of vandalism. —Snigbrook 14:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsensical entry. Judging from a Google search mujeh se seems to be a word or phrase in an eastern language, possibly Hindi or Urdu, but I was not able to figure out what it means. •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The move was the sole constribution of Jamshaha (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia, and had no edit summary. It was page move vandalism, and this is speedily deletable as such. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no need to keep this relic of apparent vandalism. Terraxos (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW. Anyone wishing deletion would have an impossible battle to try and delete it, so it is best to close it now. Tavix (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to History of union busting in the United States in order to eliminate ((globalize)) issues. This is a good title for an article with a global perspective in the future, but are not good redirects for a country specific treatment of the topic.

Also RfDing History of Union Busting, a spelling redirect at first I fixed as double, but then realized these redirects were no longer needed. Cerejota (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Having this redirect around does not eliminate the ability to create a more worldly article in the future, and with only one such article at this time, I don't see the harm in leaving it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the redirects are misleading - the article is about a part of the history.--Cerejota (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Per Schumin above. Deleting doesn't make any sense to me until an international article is established. Nothing is misleading. Wikipedia is here to educate, and making it harder to find something does the opposite.LedRush (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. I haven't explored the redirect issues, but the content is important, and represents a lot of work. I may clarify my position at a later time. Richard Myers (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for now. When someone writes an article on union busting in Europe or elswhere, then the pages can be made into disambiguation pages. Note that there is also a page titled Union busting. •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is the term "union busting" used globally, or is it primarily North American with the rest of the world using a different word or phrase? I get the nagging feeling that moving things around without answering this question would matters worse for Wikipedia, not better. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Redirected to Project Management Professional, per comments below. Thanks for finding the correct target. It had me mystified! •••Life of Riley (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should probably deleted, as it seems to be meaningless. In its short life of one week, it has been changed to four different targets. I cannot find anything on any of those four pages that seems to be relevant to this abbreviation. At the moment it redirects to Rock n Roll Soldiers. Life of Riley (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change redirect its should redirect to Project Management Professional as the "PMI-SP" is a certification covered in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerejota (talk • contribs) 06:54, 24 January 2009
• Keep and change destination to Project Management Professional as that article uses the abbreviation for part of its subject. PaulJones (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete CSD G8 by User:Discospinster (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion
An utterly non-notable subject in a fictional universe. Please note that the target is also templated for non-notability and deletion.Debresser (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete if the target remains, and delete if the target goes. As there does not appear to be a disambiguation page for president's day, that being a redirect to Washington's brithday, then the whole expression seems an unlikely term to be entered by a user. PaulJones (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: should the target be deleted, CSD G8 would apply and this would be speedily deleted unless an editor retargets it beforehand. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then delete the target first. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not within the purview of WP:RfD. At last check, the target was being prodded - no guarantee that it would even be deleted at this stage. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below for update. The prod has expired. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep the article was merged into the target, so the edit history needs to be kept. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• what? What is he talking about? Nothing was merged! Debresser (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • President's day (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) perhaps reading the redirect's history would help? I think it's a good idea, don't you? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - result of a merge of a significant amount of text, and therefore necessary for GFDL reasons. However, the target is now up for deletion, so it will hopefully get deleted under WP:CSD#R1 anyway. Terraxos (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CSD G8 Speedy Delete - target article's prod has expired; the target is no more. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Honorverse characters#Harris to Haughton, as content has now been merged there. Even one line of text carries GFDL implications.--Aervanath (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion
A not-notable event in a fictional universe. Furthermore, the title of the redirect doesn't include the word "Honorverse" which might lead to believe the redirect is to a real-life event. Please also notice that the target article didn't even mention the whole thing till I added one sentence about it. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep as the target article now mentions the event being redirected... PaulJones (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no way this one line will ever be worthy of its own article, and making a redirect for every sentence in an article doesn't sound like a good idea to me. The event is worth a short mention in the process of the whole article, but not in itself. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why it's a redirect and not a stub. It's also discussed in at least two of the books of the series, but this seems the appropriate way to target the redirect: to the concept of the fictional government of the series (the related articles are in desperate need of de-linking, but that's a different issue), but since the two books both refer to the "Harris assassination", and it's mentioned in a little detail in the current target, keep. Regarding the lack of a disambiguation: are there other entities called "Republic of Haven"? I could find none in Wikipedia; so disambiguation is not needed at present. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep the article was merged into the target, so it is required that this redirect remain. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what? What is he talking about? Nothing was merged! Debresser (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harris Assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) perhaps reading the redirect's history would help? I think it's a good idea, don't you? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not at all clear, though, that any content was merged; Inwind followed his redirection with only a copyedit on the target article, and there is no entry in the history of Republic of Haven that references a merge from Harris Assassination. I have asked Inwind to offer a clarification should he have a moment, although I don't know that we really need reach the GFDL issue (if this discussion does turn on the GFDL issue, though, we will want to be sure to link from the history of the target to the history of Republic of Haven, or at least to state explicitly in the history of the latter that content was merged from the former); this seems an entirely plausible search and thus a useful redirect. Joe 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there was some detail about in the article which might be useful for reference in the future. I felt that it is too specific to be included in Republic of Haven. On the down side I am not really happy keeping fictitious assassinations because it may take some time to find out that they are fictitious. Inwind (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied the contents to List of Honorverse characters#Harris to Haughton, therefore delete. Inwind (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - normally redirects remaining from merges should be kept for GFDL reasons, but here we're talking about one line of text. As this seems to be a relatively non-notable event even within the fictional universe, and thus a highly unlikely search term, I think we'd lose nothing by deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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