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 speedy delete by Secret for speedy deletion criterion G3. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuckedbook → Criticism of Facebook (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I'm listing this here on behalf of User:Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig who nominated it for speedy deletion. It doesn't qualify, but their concern was: "It is just a background on how got my name.""it is an attack redirect that is also implausible" I can't see this term having been used anywhere so I would suggest delete too. SmartSE (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...actually what I said in the CSD notice was that it was an attack redirect that was also implausible. I don't know where you got the "how I got my name" thing from. Oh well, in any case, Delete per nom. --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  01:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. That must have been on my clipboard from somewhere else when I thought I had copied your reason. Fixed now. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 retargeted to Television documentary by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Documentary television series → Reality television (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Originally requested by an editor at 24.0.133.234: "If you look in the history it was changed because of confusion with "Film". This re-direct makes no sense to me but another editor is doing quite a lot of linking to it via television infobox. I do not know how to fix this or send it to an appropriate page. Any help would be appreciated." Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Television documentary, most reality TV shows are game shows, not documentaries. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 new article started (non-admin closure). Although I did participate in this RfD, since a new article was started this page is no longer appropriate for RfD, and should be taken to AfD instead if people do not think that it is notable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RR Coronae Borealis → R Coronae Borealis (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Just wrong. Two completely different stars. Lithopsian (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: factually inaccurate, as mentioned above. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Opinions on whether RR CrB deserves an article of its own? The actual RR CrB seems to be borderline notable, so I'm interested in others' opinions. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is now a stub article for the real RR CrB (not me!). This star is only really notable on account of being referenced as one of the best known examples of an SRB variable star and so being linked from another article in Wikipedia. I can find other examples for this, there are several naked eye stars that already have articles. Lithopsian (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and to encourage creation of the RR Coronae Borealis article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NOTCENTER → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a convalescent center (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Wikipedia:NOTCONVALESCENT → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a convalescent center (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. The section in which these two redirects refer is no longer on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, nor is there any section on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that even resembles the words in these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G8. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as target no longer exists.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 no consensus. Wizardman 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nephite Church of Christ → Latter Day Saint movement (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Only appears to exist as a defunct, satiric blog. Not mentioned in the main article anyhow. FallingGravity (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm undecided. Is it satiric? That's some Poe's law stuff there. I expected to be voting for deletion, and checked the history, expecting it was created by a WP:SPA. But its creator, ARTEST4ECHO is a semi-retired member of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Doesn't seem like the most likely person to promote a satirical blog like that. Searching the phrase on Google, it does appear to have been some sort of Mormon sect. The topic as a whole likely doesn't meet WP:GNG, though redirects don't need to. At this point, I was leaning keep. But you're right, it isn't mentioned on the target page, so we fundamentally don't have anything to say about this group. I'm on the fence. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if it's not mentioned at the target it has no informative value and merely serves to waste time and disappoint anyone using it. Siuenti (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Ignore the blog entirely. This term has seen use for the church run by Nephi long before the discovery of the Book of Mormon and the establishment of the modern LDS church (http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-keystone-scripture/6-three-nephite-churches-christ). This is clearly an important part of LDS scripture and the church's prehistory. However, a better-focused target may be in order. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  "Nephite#Religious", perhaps? Oh, and the redirect categories would need some tweaking. FallingGravity (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The archive talk section at Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Archive_6#Nephite_Church_of_Christ may be helpful here. It shows that, while it is possable that a sect called "Nephite Church of Christ" may exist, there was never enough valid sources to get it included in the "List of Sect in the Latter Day Saint Movement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs) 16:40, 25 February 2013‎

My comment above had nothing to do with a current sect, but with a ancient sect described in the book of Nephi. No doubt in my mind that no current sect deserve an article or redirect, but the ancient sect seems notable to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study → New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plausible search term Siuenti (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, part of a broader area of study Krenakarore ^TK 11:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible redirect.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 retargeted to Pokémon Battle Frontier (manga) by User:Siuenti. Steel1943 (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• POKETTO MONSUTAA EMERARUDO CHOUSEN!! BATORU FURONTIA → Pokémon Battle Frontier (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Seems like an implausible redirect. It's supposed to mean "Pocket Monsters Emerald Challenge!! Battle Frontier" as you can see on the redirect's history. 67.161.16.188 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've retargetted it to Pokémon Battle Frontier (manga), where it originally pointed. This is a likely romanization of the original Japanese title and should be kept as such. Siuenti (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. I knew it was a romanization, but never knew that it was supposed to point towards the manga. 67.161.16.188 (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.