Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 4

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) 15:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Celebrity/famous ghosts → Ghost  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This information is not provided in its target article to WP:CONCISE-ly define the scope of this title. Also, this title is a WP:SUBPAGE violation, especially since it's not directly tied to the article Celebrity. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the title is probably intended to mean "celebrity or famous ghosts", rather than being an attempt at a WP:SUBPAGE. We do have a List of ghosts. OTOH, a similar redirect which was a more likely search term (Celebrity deaths) got deleted a few months ago. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SLASH we do not form titles in this manner and WP:SUBPAGE we do not create subpages for famous ghosts of celebrities. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SLASH. Rubbish computer 13:03, 5 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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fishing How-To → Fishing  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTGUIDE -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 12:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's perhaps too late to merge these discussions, but I suggest this follows #How to fish below. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - And I recommend that this whole matter be closed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:10, 14 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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Yours to Give → Davy Crockett  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I had to navigate over to Wikiquote to figure out what this was referring to. Apparently it was a speech given by Crockett, but "there has been dispute as to the authenticity of this speech as there is no known record of it prior to 1884", almost 50 years after his death. At any rate, it's not mentioned or even alluded to in Crockett's Wikipedia article, as far as I can tell, so it's not helping anyone. BDD (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An external search is saturated by Davy Crockett and the Constitution Party, but in the absence of any info at the former, and the latter being neither the Constitution Party (United States) nor the Constitution Party (United States, 1952) (from the DAB at Constitution Party), it should be WP:REDLINK (WP:RFD#D10). Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Simon Trew's points above: WP:REDLINK, WP:RFD#D10. Rubbish computer 12:50, 6 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) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• EINSTEINS THEORY OF GRAVITATION → General relativity  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Can we just please delete this horrible redirect? It appears to have been an ancient redundant fork made in 2005 that has been made (possibly without a consensus) into a redirect in 2009. I already tried to get rid of that by moving it, but I forgot how the bots fix double redirects, so it is still out there. It also has a very bad habit to show up very high in search results for Einstein. Reasons 5 and 8 apply from here: WP:RFD#DELETE. The redirect has a typo in it, and it is all CAPS. I would have just outright proposed a speedy delete, but I do not think any particular policy allows me to do that since this is so old redirect. Ceosad (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact there is another redirect with different capitalization (Einstein's theory of gravitation) that links to Introduction to general relativity. Ceosad (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep just make sure it matches Einstein's theory of gravitation -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All caps + missing apostrophe = implausible. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's an emerging precedent that all-caps redirects are not useful and should be deleted, unless they're acronyms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that. We've had two ALL CAPS nominations recently: GREEK MINORITY IN FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA which was similar to this, and OBAMA!, which was kept. If this was GENERAL RELATIVITY or something closer to the page title, I'd !vote to keep it (although I wouldn't want a bunch of these created). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry for being so inactive. I was going through something serious. Delete per Ivanvector's claim to an emerging precedent. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ivanvector's point. Rubbish computer 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unambiguously redirects the reader to the content their looking for, no rationale has been provided for deletion relating to this redirect. WilyD 09:43, 7 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) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the longest word? → Longest words  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. "What" is not the longest word. Si Trew (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: While I agree that this should be deleted, this appears to be a question rather than a statement. Rubbish computer 12:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I forefeit my bathplugs. A bit WP:POINTY by me. Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps retarget to Titin, the full name of which is 180000+ letters making it the longest word in English. Mizzou1993 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of doubt that, if you IUPAC-name some extremely variable macromolecules, there should be longer words. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Indeed. the human genome or deoxyribonucleic acid, when enumerated, would be somewhat longwinded, especially with all that bendy chirality stuff. I should not be in such bad faith as to suggest this is a bit of masturbation of someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Rubbish computer 12:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that NOTFAQ relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:06, 8 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) 15:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to tale care of plants → Houseplant care  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect with typo and not likely to be searched. GZWDer (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, and the fact that the redirect contains an unlikely typo. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 12:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 8 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) 15:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to survive a zombie attack → Zombie  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Super weak retarget to The Zombie Survival Guide --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. It says "outbreak" in the article, if it were the title of literature or something I'd support a retarget, but it's just in the article information and not exactly the same.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 12:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D2. This could cause confusion, as there is no information on how to survive a zombie attack on the page it's redirected to. ~ Rob^Talk 00:08, 8 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) 15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to test three-phase pumps → Three-phase electric power  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it was merged into Three-phase electric power, so we need to keep the list of contributors (i.e. the history). Graham87 05:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but no actual content from this page was merged to the target, instead all new content was created at the destination. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO and it doesn't appear that anything was actually merged -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:10, 8 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 move without redirect, as suggested by Rubbish computer. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to test three-phase electrical supply → Three-phase electric power  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to need a history merge per below.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it was merged into Three-phase electric power, so we need to keep the list of contributors (i.e. the history). Graham87 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect to talk:Three-phase electric power/edithistory/supply testing to preserve the contribution history per WP:MAD ; the current title is WP:NOTHOWTO and should be a redlink -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move without redirect to Talk:Three-phase electrical power/edithistory/supply testing per 67's points. Rubbish computer 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. The fact an edit history exists makes the rationale to keep even stronger. ~ Rob^Talk 00:11, 8 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) 15:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to think → Outline of thought  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:11, 8 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) 15:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to make portable apps → Portable application creators  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:11, 8 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) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to make a % solution → Percentage solution  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:11, 8 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) 15:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to make a molar solution → Molar concentration  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:11, 8 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) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to make a baby → Human fertilization  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• <off topic> How is babby formed? (RfD) --BDD (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:12, 8 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) 15:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to learn a language → How-to  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned. GZWDer (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO (meaning that I would not even support a retargetting option.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and it not being mentioned at target. Rubbish computer 13:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D5. This redirects makes no sense, given the current target. ~ Rob^Talk 00:12, 8 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) 15:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to fly → Flight  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:13, 8 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) 15:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to eat → Eating  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:13, 8 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) 15:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to copy-edit → Copy editing  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:14, 8 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. That's how. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to delete → Deletion  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTHOWTO -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Rubbish computer 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 00:14, 8 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) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Epic 2 → Epic (2013 film)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no mention of any sequels at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't find any mentions of the sequel as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Epic (game) which lists multiple editions -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Epic (game)#2nd edition. Rubbish computer 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. To address those suggesting a redirect: while we describe it as the "second edition" here on Wikipedia, I can't find a source to back up that it is officially called that. Epic 2 almost suggests the game had a sequel.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and oppose retargetting to Epic (game)#2nd edition since 2nd editions of table-top games are not sequels, and thus, targeting this redirect there could be seen as a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In software, the "2" can represent the second release, second version, second revision, etc, so does not necessarily mean sequel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:39, 5 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 Jacobite rising of 1745#Legacy. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indemnity Act 1747 → Act of Indemnity  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should not redirect to DAB page as 1) is an unambiguous title, 2) being a bluelink misleads editors into thinking the article exists, and 3) it's ridiculous to have it on the dab page redirecting to itself DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The remedy is to unlink "Indemnity Act 1747" at the DAB: its entry (and the one below) fail One Blue Link anyway. I don't think it should be retargeted or deleted, since retargeting to Jacobite rising of 1715, the other link in its entry at the DAB, would lose the context by which those searching may put two and two together.

But Indemnity Act (1747) – what I believe is the usual way of disambiguation Acts – is red. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acts are usually given their short titles, which do not have brackets. DuncanHill (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Jacobite rising of 1745#Legacy where this is now mentioned. Unless I'm missing another alternative name for it (besides "Act of Indemnity" and "Indemnity Act") I don't see that there's enough source material to write a full article on it, so WP:RFD#D10 would not apply. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 58.176, who added the mention (with a ref): thanks. Without prejudice, I've tidied the DAB a bit. Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per 58.176 - the ref is a little unclear, as there is no "Hamilton" listed in the references section. There is a work by Hamilton, but the references section only refers to a piece by another author within it. That's a problem with that style of referencing. DuncanHill (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I accidentally cited the volume editor rather than the chapter author; fixed. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you 58.176.246.42 DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Rubbish computer 13:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 58. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:20, 7 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) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Combat emplacement evacuator → Entrenching tool  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Strong delete and perhaps salt, as for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Manual geomorphological modification implement. This one as a twist because it has actually been retargetted: on creation in March 2010 it targetted Shovel but, bizarrely, it was retargetted in August 2013 by User:Unkindpuddle to Entrenching tool with the edit comment "There is an article for this particular type of shovel", somewhat missing the point.

This is only used in the caption of the picture at WP:SPADE, and not in article space at all. Perhaps the picture has has changed, since what is there now is not an entrenching tool. But I can't find such a change in the history.

WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Stats are low (averaging about three every four days) but irrelevant as I imagine many come via WP:SPADE. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It was a piped link [[Spade|Combat emplacement evacuator]] at the caption until this edit of 5 December 2012. However, this redirect predates that. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a joke term of dubious notability. People say lots of funny things. Wikipedia is not a tool for decoding jokes and puns. - user:Altenmann >t 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be used in the real world, even if it is sarcastic or facetious ; [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] etc ad infinitum; -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RFD#D5, as with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Manual geomorphical modification implement. Rubbish computer 13:32, 6 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) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to lose weight → Weight loss  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

WP:NOTHOWTO. GZWDer (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Stop eating too much is red. Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - directs reader to the content to the content they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. Given that HOWTO relates to article content, which redirects don't have, I can only assume something else was meant. WilyD 09:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOMEDICALADVICE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTHOWTO applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. WP:NOMEDICALADVICE does not apply to redirects, unless the redirect specifically states we're offering medical advice. This one does not. ~ Rob^Talk 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Upon further thought, the potential risk of interpreting this as medical advice is not outweighed by the usefulness of this redirect. They will almost certainly find what they're looking for in the search results anyway. ~ Rob^Talk 01:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 10 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) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How to:create a new wiki page → Wikipedia:Your first article  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely searched term. GZWDer (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete promotes the misconception that wiki pages only exist at Wikipedia, which is clearly not true. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since "How to" isn't a valid namespace.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:cross-namespace redirects. Rubbish computer 13:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and since the title gives the reader the false expectation that "How to:" is a WP:PNS. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 10 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 vegetable soup. Closing this early because it's obvious and starting to WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vegetable Soup → Vegetable Soup (TV series)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Considering the recent discussions about Vegetable soup and Soup vegetables, I can't see that this should go straight to the TV series as a WP:DIFFCAPS. Retarget to the DAB at Vegetable soup as an {{R from other capitalisation}}. For if not, then just move the target over the redirect. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote at the target. three articles linked through the redirect, which flouting WP:NOTBROKEN I've WP:BOLDly changed to pipe directly to the TV series. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Vegetable soup for the time being.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to vegetable soup (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget; clearly both primary and most common meaning. - user:Altenmann >t 02:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Vegetable soup per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to vegetable soup. Rubbish computer 13:29, 6 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.