Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 6

November 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 6, 2015.

White supremacistical



 * 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. All but one of these have already been deleted by Drmies, as noted below. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * White supremacistical → White supremacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_supremacistical&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * White-supremacistical → White supremacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White-supremacistical&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Whitesupremacistical → White supremacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitesupremacistical&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * White supremacistic → White supremacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_supremacistic&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Whitesupremacistic → White supremacy (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitesupremacistic&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible redirects with minimal page views. These kinds of redirect constructions have been generally rejected in the past. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletionitateify. No, come on. WP:G1. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of deleting four of these as implausible (really, non-existent). As it happens "White supremacistic" does exist in at least one book; whether it's useful as a redirect I'll leave for others to decide. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, the fact that the author of one book made this error I think does not justify the redirect. They also used "ebonicistic". Just poor editing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM, nonce word. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of these are actually helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Feminisationally



 * 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 procedural close. has deleted the redirect but did not close the discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Feminisationally → Feminization (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminisationally&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Highly implausible redirect; only five hits in the last 30 days. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, unclear meaning, not listed at target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ivanvector. Wikipedia is the only place on the entire Internet in which this random agglomeration of morphemes has ever appeared. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Comment. I've nominated the WP:ENGVAR → Feminization for WP:CSD, since I do not doubt it would be deleted by same rationale. Si Trew (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Fragmentalizing



 * 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. The first three have already been deleted by The Anome. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Fragmentalizing → Fragmentation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fragmentalizing&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Fragmentationally → Fragmentation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fragmentationally&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Fragmentingness → Fragmentation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fragmentingness&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Fragmentalize → Fragmentation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fragmentalize&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]  Added by Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Implausible redirect; only six/seven/four/thirteen (respectfully) hits in the last 30 days. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC) comment altered with regard to page views while merging listings Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ditto for the nom I just added Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I don't think these are even words. They're not listed on the dab page anyway. I've WP:BOLDly merged these discussions since I don't see any reason to expect different outcomes for any of them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for merging. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all: this reminds me of Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 27, especially Ivan's comment about them not being real words. I can see how you can get carried away by adding prefixes and suffixes to words, but there comes a time where you need to step back and think if the "words" make sense and what utility they have. I'd basically echo BDD's comment over there, and say that since we're not a dictionary, we shouldn't have these word forms unless the target article uses them or they are useful in another way. These aren't. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all: No, these are unlikely to be misconstrued with "fragmentation". I'm fairly certain none of them are even part of the English vocabulary. At this rate you could extend the list ad infinitum. Wisdom89 ♦talk 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP:ENGVAR Fragmentalising is red. Fragmentize and Fragmentise are also red, all quite rightly, since the verb is "to fragment", with the stress on the second syllable; in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Si Trew (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added another, I couldn't see how we could have Fragmentalizing if we didn't have Fragmentalize from which to form it, but we do, so that's moot. Same target, same rationale. Fragmentalise is red. This is all rather discombobulatizing. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Nude pelvis



 * 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 deleted by under criterion WP:G7; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nude pelvis → Pantlessness (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nude_pelvis&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Naked pelvis → Pantlessness (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_pelvis&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

A User:Neelix-created redirect that got only 12 hit in the last 30 days according to stats.grok.se. Seems very unlikely to be useful. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets for both of these, none likely to be useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:R; obscure synonym that's unlikely to be useful. (nb: I boldly merged these two discussions.) -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Deleted Article



 * 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 deleted WP:G6 by . (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Deleted Article → Phiwa Nkambule (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deleted_Article&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The title "Deleted Article" is misleading. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This seems uncontroversial enough. I count at least four Criteria for speedy deletion that this could reasonably fall under, WP:R3 being a good choice. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:R3 would be invalid: "This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move." WP:G6 is probably the best option: "deleting pages unambiguously created in error," tagging it now. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt as an unreasonable page name -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Comment can we salt this ? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too. I recall this title being used as a placeholder by admins for history merging or possibly other things. Admins can override create protection, so I don't see any reason *not* to do this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)