Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 18

Great Barred Spiral Galaxy → NGC 1365
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Great Barred Spiral Galaxy is not a name for NGC 1365 recognized by professional references such as the SIMBAD Astronomical Database or the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. It is not even a term that is commonly used by anyone; a Google search on "Great Barred Spiral Galaxy" turns up only a handful of pages (some of which may have copied Wikipedia, which once referred to this galaxy as the "Great Barred Spiral Galaxy").  The term is a very general term that could refer to any good-looking barred spiral galaxy; the Google search even turns up a couple of references to galaxies other than NGC 1365 that are called "great barred spiral galaxies".  Also note that this was created by User:Hurricane Devon, who was banned partly for the disruption he caused by inventing names for astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 18:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Usually redirects are harmless, but in this case Google shows just a few genuine uses. Further the name is generic enough to be possibly misleading. The way, the truth, and the light 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Redirects from nicknames are generally fine, but it doesn't even sound like this qualifies as a valid nickname.  Xtifr tälk 10:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, according to professional sources, this isn't a valid nickname for NGC 1365.  *Cremepuff 222*  23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Word choice → Diction
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Delete - Seeeming attempt at some form of neoligism. Even according to the first definition in Diction, it is much richer than merely the choice of words used. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for creating new associations. Avi 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - word choice is a concept that is (in my opinion) subsumed by diction; I have seen the former used in the context of the latter. Grace notes T § 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Googling it, the connection is rather frequent and diction actually mentions the redirected term. No problem if the target is richer. --Tikiwont 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Probable search term redirecting to proper article. Not a neologism.  Cool Blue  talk to me 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the first few lines of Diction say that diction is "the term for a writer or speaker's distinctive choices in vocabulary and style of expression".  *Cremepuff 222*  23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Particular vividness → Misleading vividness
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Delete - This is an attempt at a neologism; misleading vividness <> particular vividness. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for creating new associations. Avi 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - This is just mistaken. 'Particular' is just an adjective here. While one might rephrase the definition of the logical fallacy of misleading vividness as involving the description of some occurrence with particular vividness, a particular vivid description does not necessarily amount to a logical fallacy. --Tikiwont 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)