The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Meat Lovers → Domino's Pizza (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I'm not sure if Domino's created the phrase "Meat Lovers", and if we can find one place that really made it famous we could change this redirect to point there, but I'm guessing that it's too nebulous. ATM it redirects to Pizza in the United States#Ingredients, but I think that's also confusing. -Zeus-^u|c 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Its more about the flavour which Domino's has named it which is why I suggested redirecting it to Domino's Pizza RoboHomo (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm asking - personally I don't know whether dominos invented meat lovers. Did they? If so, then a redirect makes sense. -Zeus-^u|c 19:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term "Meat Lovers" is way too nebulous to redirect solely to a type of pizza or pizza restaurant. Typing in "meat lovers" into Google results in autocomplete suggestions such as "meat lovers pizza", "meat lovers lasagna", "meat lovers chili", and (one of my favorites) "meat lovers skillet." Doing an actual search yields pizzas as well as vegetarian recipes and other things unrelated to pizza, much less Domino's Pizza. Doing a search on the more specifically targeted "meat lovers pizza" yields competing chain Pizza Hut as the first hit, and no Domino's hit anywhere on the first page of results. I would not be opposed to Meat Lover's Pizza existing as a redirect to Pizza in the United States, as that concept extends beyond any one particular chain. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• If a search brings up numerous results then what would be a good idea is to find the exact origin (restaurant or country) and redirect it to that. Pizza in the United States seems to be the most suitable at this time even though Domino's Pizza is the most popular use of the Meat Lovers name. RoboHomo (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a valid point IF you are talking about "Meat Lovers Pizza". The term "meat lover(s)" without further qualification can also refer to, in addition to what I already mentioned, carnivores as a whole, or people who are opposed to vegetarianism or veganism, or it can just plain refer to people like myself who have a preference for food that comes from animals. Per WP:R#DELETE a redirect should be deleted if it might cause confusion (criteria 2) or if it makes no sense (criteria 4), both of which apply in this case. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Meat Lovers Pizza which is sold at Domino's is what the original article was about and is what I am talking about. RoboHomo (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while "Meat Lovers pizza" might be an appropriate redirect to one of the targets mentioned, "Meat Lovers" is not. It doesn't matter whether the target article is about pizza or not, the phrase "Meat lovers" contains no connotation of being about pizza, nor any other single topic. In the top 20 results of a google.co.uk search for "Meat lovers", pizza appears only at positions 11 and 16. The topics covered, in order, are: 1: a butcher in Western Australia, 2: a healthcare article about red meat, 3: a book entitled "the shameless carnivore", the five top images none of which are related to pizza, the top two video hits - neither apparently about pizza, 4: a recipe for roast beef, 5: an advertorial about bacon-flavoured vodka, 6: a restaurant guide to Athens, 7: an advertoiral about soy-based foods, 8: a recipe for quiche, 9: a recipe for turkey dressing, 10: a product listing for a barbecue apron with a cartoon on it, 11: a review of a dominos pizza, 12: a recipe for lasagne, 13: an anti-vegetarianism article, 14: a facebook page entitled "Bull - for meat lovers" (no idea what the content is), 15: a review of the book at hit 3, 16: a home-made recipe for pizza, 17: urban dictionary (first definition not related to pizza, no others shown), 18: a recipe for lasagne, 19: a news article about a vegetarian black pudding, 20: a restaurant in Thailand. There is clearly no target that could be relevant to all this, so delete is the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Thryduulf and Kuyabribri's evidence shows that the single term Meat Lovers means any type of food, therefore delete is the only option. RoboHomo (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to carnivore as someone who does like a lot of meat is called a meat lover. Simply south (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However they are not the only people or things to be called meat lovers. Also, the majority of people who are called or self-describe as meat lovers are actually not carnivores ("organisms that derive their energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue,"), but omnivores. ("species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source.") Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As there is insufficant evidence, the only real option now is to delete as redirecting will cause confusion. RoboHomo (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DECwindows → Common Desktop Environment (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Procedural nomination. due to malformed CSD/AfD nomination; original rationale by RokerHRO (talk · contribs) was "Wrong redirect. CDE is not DECwindows, and it is not mentioned in that article at all"

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - DECwindows is a Digital Equipment Corporation brand name for their version of CDE, hence the redirect. Typically gets 5-20 hits a day, per stats.grok.se - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DECwindows is an implementation of CDE. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert wars → Wikipedia:Edit warring (links to redirect • history • stats) 

delete as it makes no sense that it is a cross-namespace redirect from the article area. It was originally an article but got redirected when it was decided the article was the same as the wikipedia page i think. Simply south (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE #5. Cross namespace redirect, this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cross-namespace redirect. –Grondemar 13:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks like this was made into a redirect to get rid of a pointless article; now it's time to tidy up for the reasons given above.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Xspace redirect, this is the perfect case for why we don't allow these. We do not want someone looking for encyclopedic content and to be led to an internal term. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bad CNR, outbound from the mainspace towards the project space. We shouldn't encourage this. --Taelus (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dreamscape (dream) → Dream (links to redirect • history • stats) 

DELETE. This is a pointless redirect which is not discussed in the body of the target article. It is also implausible that someone is going to type "dreamscape (dream)" when they could just type "dream" to begin with. JBsupreme (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by user:NawlinWiki. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamplate:Julien-K → Template:Julien-K (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible redirect; result of a move. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this effectively is a cross-namespace redirect since there is no "Tamplate" namespace. Unless we plan to create a "Tamplate" redirect for every template this should go. –Grondemar 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD R3 or G6 as there is no Tamplate: space in Wikipedia and this redirect was created by a move from an improper name this week. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete r3, which I've tagged it for; if for some reason declined, then delete as an implausible misspelling and unnecessary cross-namespace redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarity between religion and mythology → Religion and mythology (links to redirect • history • stats) 

POV redir. Note this redir was created as a way to deal with a POV personal essay, look at the history. Possibly it needs to go to AfD instead. DES ^(talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV. -Zeus-^u|c 02:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Its original version obviously wouldn't survive AfD. (WP:POV, WP:NOT#ESSAY etc.). Not the likeliest of search terms, but I think it has some plausibility. Article doesn't cover similarities per se, but it does talk about "overlapping aspects". Redirects are cheap, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirects do not have to be NPOV (and this is clearly not "inflammatory"). The first paragraph of the lede mentions similarities between religion and mythology; so, the redirect will serve its purpose rather adequately. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep and restore merged content, use the relevant article talk page to discuss the merged content if it is disputed. --Taelus (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Goldman → Criticism of Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unhelpful redirect: not mentioned on target page. (Eric Goldman is a professor who's made several criticisms of Wikipedia; his article was merged into Criticism of Wikipedia back in 2007, but at some point since the merged content was removed, and the redirect is now not very useful.) Robofish (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the redirect as it stands is useless. Either restore mention of Goldman, however briefly, to the Criticism page, or else delete the redirect. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore merged content in criticism article. Simply south (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think restoring merged content would be a good idea, even if it's just a sentence or two. If the only notable thing he's done is critiscise Wikipedia (I'm not assuming this, just suggesting it), the people will likely search his name for that reason, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep --Taelus (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sandbox/history → Wikipedia:Sandbox/History (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is a redirect from a minor pagemove that points to an obscure project page. The redirect has no incoming links except those generated by this nomination, is not likely to be searched by anyone (note that stats.grok.se is case-insensitive, so traffic stats for "Wikipedia:Sandbox/history" will equal those for "Wikipedia:Sandbox/History"), and is not even necessary for searching, since the search function is case-insensitive for this type of page title. The documentation of the move is preserved in the page history of the target page. (Redirect creator not notified because: indef-blocked since 2005) –Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as common other spelling. Simply south (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as alternative capitalisation (WP:RFD#KEEP). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Search function is case-insensitive, not needed. To be honest, I would have left it as it was if I'd came across it. Redirects are cheap. Often cheaper than RfDs. But now that it's here, it may as well be deleted. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not neccesary. -Zeus-^u|c 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as alternative capitalization, does no harm, redirs are cheap. DES ^(talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as alternative capitalization. "Lack of incoming links" and "redundant" not reasons for deletion of redirects (see top of WP:RfD). B.Wind (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - likely typo, as Lord Spongefrog says redirects are cheap. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Aspies → Asperger syndrome (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Possible delete - I'm concerned that 'Aspies' is a pejorative term. I don't know if it is or isn't, but there's been a complaint on the redirect talk page. Ludwigs2 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "Aspies" indicates that the word is used by people with Asperger syndrome. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a common term for people with Asperger syndrome. It is used both pejoratively and self-referentially, but even if it was only used in the former way it is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - common shortening of this. Simply south (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Common name. It may be potentially offensive, but redirects don't need to adhere to WP:NPOV (see WP:RfD#Neutrality of redirects). Reasonably high traffic, viewed 125 times in January 2010, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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