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. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 18 seconds → Sheamus#Championship reigns and various feuds (2010–2014)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague term that could refer to millions of things. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~Liance^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Delete there are indeed many things that this could refer to, and I'm not really seeing any that are notable currently (recently there was a South Korean TV pilot by this name that may, if it gets picked up for a series and the name is retained, become notable in future). The best thing I found for now is Time (orders of magnitude), but I'm not convinced that would make a good target. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see this term used in reference to a a musical artist and a surfing magazine among other things. It seems best to me to just leave the term red right now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Many possible meanings.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change to disambig. I did not know the number had other notable uses. CWM and Thry have pointed out some good ones, so I think it should be change from disambig to redirect. Ranze (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2015 (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. --BDD (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Phandom → Dan Howell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Phandom" is not mentioned at the target page. This redirect started as an article that was vandalism and/or BLP violation. The term is apparently commonly used in the context of Philadelphia Phillies fandom and perhaps could be retargeted there instead. Deli nk (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From what I've seen online, it looks like the 'Dan and Phil' comedy group use the term 'Phandom' as a sort of in-joke. They even sell products as such. However, the term in-and-of-itself is more vague and is used by other groups such as the Philadelphia Phillies team (see here for just one example) as pointed out. I'd rather just see the text left in red ideally to prevent confusion, maybe with a Phandom (disambiguation) being made as a second best option. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible synonym. Rubbish computer 10:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Weak Retarget to fandom as possible mispronunciation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about the latter—I think it's as likely an error for Phantom. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Phelete per nom. I agree it's as likely to be a pronunciation error for "fandom" (some people aren't native English speakers) as it is to be a typographic error for "phantom" (T and M are pretty far apart), so it's best left red. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (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 for now, without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dank meme → Internet meme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Dank memes → Internet meme  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The way I see it, few people looking up "dank meme" on Wikipedia are looking for information related to internet memes in general. If they were, they would search for "internet meme." People looking for dank meme are most likely looking for information specific to dank meme, such as when it was created and where it comes from, and having it redirect to internet meme isn't helpful. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "Dank meme" has been used as a term online to describe any meme in an "ironic" way. If it's being used to describe any meme, a redirect to "internet meme" is appropriate as an alternative name. Additionally, with no more relevant articles available to redirect to, we should keep in mind that redirects are cheap. ~ Rob^Talk 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• See Dank Memes at Know Your Meme. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above points. --Rubbish computer 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Given your reasoning, I'm surprised that you put the page up for deletion instead of trying to add information specific to dank memes, such as when they were created and where they come from. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. ~GottaGoFast ^Stepitup 04:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Memes" are not: Unpleasantly damp; cold and wet. This is a slang usage of "dank". If it were mentioned at Know Your Meme, I'd suggest redirecting it there. It isn't. It shouldn't really direct to Internet meme, the term almost promotes Know Your Meme's attempt of entering it into usage, and definitely constitutes WP:RECENTISM.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't normally like keeping redirects that aren't mentioned, but this would be the correct target for this per BDD's link and Rob's explanation. The stats show significant usage, peaking at 51 on July 10th, and that's what matters here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, somewhat per nom, and partially because I want to clarify that I wasn't actually suggesting we keep this. "Dank meme" is sort of itself a meme, and the nom is correct that a reader searching for this term probably isn't looking for memes in generally. However, I can't imagine a decent article on "Dank meme"—it's a silly phrase, like Cool story (or, perhaps, Yummy Food (RfD)), that really only serves as a dismissive response to something else. If someone could describe a way to sensibly discuss this idea at the target article or elsewhere, I'd give that consideration, but personally, I don't see how it would be done. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - George Orwell noted it well in Politics and the English Language when he stated that some metaphors are so widely used that they're basically 'dead', being just another part of what's already described. Orwell, I think, used the example of 'iron resolution' for 'resolution', and I think 'dank meme' for 'meme' applies as well. Another example could very well referring to the 'Roman Catholic Church' in comparison with the 'Catholic Church' or the 'Amazing Spiderman' in comparison with just 'Spiderman'. I'm not sure, but I feel like the redirect should stay as it is now. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<off topic> Did you know that there's a Twitter account that does nothing but tweet at people who forget to put the hyphen in "Spider-Man"? --BDD (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2015 (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 already deleted as CSD R3 by Bgwhite. Deryck C. 10:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean Lambert-wild (en) → Jean Lambert-wild  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"(en)" is an improper disambiguation and unnecessary. The entirety of this Wikipedia is the "en" (English) Wikipedia. Implausible search term and generally un-useful. Recently created as the result of a page move.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think this redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2015 (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 retarget to Frucor. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just Juice → Orange juice  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an actual brand name, which is mentioned at Frucor, but its better to have an actual article on it, the current target is unhelpful. - TheChampionMan1234 05:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "just Juice" can also mean pure juice as in unadulterated, not from concentrate; or without alcohol; etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as possible WP:PROMO issue. I'm also open to an article if the brand name is actually notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I believe it is actually made from diluted orange juice concentrate, so in one sense belies its own name. In the United Kingdom, there is (or at least used to be) a legal distinction between "Pure Orange Juice" and "Fresh Orange Juice", for example: the latter cannot be from concentrate. (And I remember the ad jingle for it.) Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From justjuiceusa.com, it also seems to be a brand of electronic cigarette. Perhaps WP:RFD#D2 confusing, then. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Frucor as ((R from brand name)). --BDD (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarget as suggested by BDD. The brand exists so people are likely to search for it. Let's direct them to something useful. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Frucor per BDD--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Frucor per BDD. Rubbish computer 10:26, 28 August 2015 (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 retarget to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd per WP:SNOW. Most likely the redirect's creator was simply unaware of this article. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Samuel C. T. Dodd → Lawyer  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at all in article. Probably is referring to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd, and should be redirected there if so. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd since that looks to be what people are looking for CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per CWM -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd per CWM --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd per CWM. Rubbish computer 15:43, 27 August 2015 (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. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lady lawyer → Lawyer  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Just because female legal experts exist doesn't mean that we should have a redirect on it. I just don't see why this has to exist. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep certainly, this term is used to refer to female lawyers, thus a valid variation on the topic of lawyers, where what female lawyers are is discussed at the target. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention I see of specifically female lawyers is the assertion that American women lawyers still use the "Esquire" designation. Is there more discussion of I've missed? --BDD (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weak keep since the variant form found for females should redirect to the generic unisex term. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unlikely to be helpful to readers. If we had an article on women in the legal profession, we could retarget it there, but we don't (closest thing we seem to have right now is women in the United States judiciary), and the current target barely discusses anything about "lady lawyers" besides a bare mention of the fact that "In the United States the style [Esq.] is also used by female lawyers.". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I can only find two other "Lady/Woman/Women [profession] → [profession]" redirects: Woman superhero → Superhero and Women rabbis → rabbi, and those targets (unlike lawyer) have large sections devoted to women. The others all target an article or list which specifically discusses women in that profession. See collapse box below. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there appears to be nowhere specifically discussing women in the legal profession. Rubbish computer 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep due to the examples listed above. I was going to suggest a retarget to something like Women in law, but that turns out to an erroneous redirect to Women in the United States judiciary. Do other countries not have women lawyers or something? This is Paul (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic of a lawyer itself isn't specific to a particular sex. Now if the topic at hand were women in nursing or men in nursing, and the redirects in question were lady nurse or gentlemen nurse respectively, it would be a different story. The article doesn't really cover if a sex has been historically allowed or disallowed from practicing law, with only a mention of men specifically regarding cannon law, so there isn't really a good section to refine the term to. History of the legal profession doesn't really touch on the subject of the sex of lawyers, except very briefly in regards to the first lawyers in ancient Rome.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Commend - there's probably quite a good article to be written on the subject of women in law if anyone wanted to take it on. This is Paul (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though this wouldn't be the actual title, we should have an article on this subject. This redirect misleads readers in suggesting we do. --BDD (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2015 (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.