Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 28

July 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2009

Sleaze
The result of the discussion was delete, misleading redirect that does not exclusively relate to its current target. No prejudice against creating a disambiguation page if there are logical entries for it, but it seems plain that no particular redirect is appropriate here. ~ mazca  talk 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Delete. "Sleaze" is merely a word used in one spot of the target article. "Sleaze" is no way synonymous with "glam rock" except as hyperbole. The word "sleaze" does not lend itself to redirection to any one article in Wikipedia. This redirect has been deleted twice already; most recently yesterday, see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 24. The redirect has many links to it, but most appear to be unrelated to the target article, making it misdescriptive as well. The present redirect was created within hours of the most recent deletion. This may even be a candidate for maybe WP:SALT. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Glam rock (links to redirect)
 * Strong Delete. Per comment above. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt per TJRC. B.Wind (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps the creation of a disambiguation page would be better, as sleaze is clearly a legitimate search term for a number of subjects. wjemather bigissue 08:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a legitimate search term (at least not an NPOV one) for a title of an article, however; at least, no one has shown that. It might be used in the content of an article, and the search function finds such articles just fine, without requiring a redirect.  I can't see using a redirect here in any way that is not NPOV. TJRC (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)