August 24

Disco Institute →Discovery Institute

Rational for deletion: User tries making fun of this institute, (he is an open atheist with a open crusade against religion look at his personal page.) Nobody will ever search for this institution with this name. Make a Google search and see for yourself only 1 very left wing anti religious site calls it like this to mock its work in their hateful open despise to this institution. Totally not encyclopedic, with clear POV breach to make this a redirect. Thanks--יודל19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The crusade argument seems a bit overblown, but this is IMO speedily deletable undercriterion R3 (recently created implausible typo). --Pekaje19:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not a typo, but a misnomer, and is used at least sometimes.[1] When I created the redirect I thought that it was more common, though.Reinis^talk20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misleading (they don't seem to study disco music).Kusma (talk)20:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be rarely used attempt used to poke fun at the Discovery Institute. Not notable. --Alan Lieftingtalk21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term isPOV (because it is used as derision) and it is non-notable. --Alan Lieftingtalk04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anyone that knows me knows that I would do anything to make fun of theDiscovery Institute, however, I am not convinced that is what this term does, or the purpose of the term, or the purpose of this redirect. Is this really so disrespectful? I must be missing something. I am undecided about it, to be honest.--Filll21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion moved fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 23 toWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 24.BigNate37_(T)21:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's only a redirect, so that anyone who finds this mocking term and wonders what it's about gets redirected to the proper article. It's not something that should appear in that article, and it's not that common a nickname, but unless we assume that everyone reading these sources is in on the joke, a redirect might be useful. Regarding "misleading", they don't seem to study discovery either, and "Disco" is commonly used as a short term for "Discovery". ..dave souza,talk22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not even aCOMMONNAME for the institute. --Aarktica00:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh delete - misleading. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk07:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - surely not.Onnaghar^{tl |co}10:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per all the above. Man, there are so many lame jokes I could use here. Be grateful I don't.John Carter14:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is no place for such blatant vandalism --ChrisDHDR ^{( •contrib's)}08:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete - I just encountered the term (onWilliam Dembski's blog, no less!), and had to look it up. A quick Google search finds that the term used on Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula, to name two notable websites. If the redirectdoes get deleted, a note should probably be added to theDiscovery Institute page.63.201.14.17518:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I searched and only found "disco institute" usedonceon Dembski's blog.[2] That use was in comment, not by blog authors, and the very next comment asks "please refrain from using silly little nicknames like Disco Institute." This is deceptive to claim, without link, that Dembski's blog uses the term - it does not and in fact expressly requested that a commenter no use the term.Veritasjohn00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per 63.201.14.175. If this is being commonly used by all sides of this dispute, then it clearly is not derogatory, and is becoming fairly common. In that case, I see no particular reason to delete it. I would not personally refer to the Discovery Institute in that way, at least at this point in time, but if others do, then it should be made easier to find.--Filll11:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete An IP address throws out something without any link to back it up and here comes a disco hater to use it for rational on somethingstrong... I smell sockpupetry here. Anyways if somebody in a private blog which is heavily discussing a single issue think day and night makes an abbreviation once in a while doesn't mean that the somebody out there in the world will refer to this like this. Fact is nobody will make a redirect to theDiscovery Channel from the worddisco channel even if somebody has sometimes discused it in his blog as an abbreviation, this is a clear POV pushing by the haters of this particular institution, its a shame we have to make votes on this even. Google only links to 1 or 2 sites which are openly pushing this hateful and biased mockery of this institution, and they use it only as a mockery name not as a series name, wikipedia should not be part of this, just like we don't push all the Clinton name calling jokes, which conservative humerus sites call him and Google will bring it up, as a redirect, because redirects are made for only legitimate names which an innocent user will search for, not biased names that biased users want to name it, unless the community here decides we all are part in this to hate the creationists therefore we want it as a search word for us, which i beg to consider as a grave move which is against the whole idea of reaching consensus and not hurting the minority opinion.--יודל11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orrewrite. I'm not a fan of the Discovery Institute, but only 593 Ghits, and no use by non-bloggers. Thus flunksWP:NEO. If the page is kept, it should be changed from a redirect to a short stub that indicates that the term is a pejorative name for the Discovery Institute; the redirect violates NPOV. CompareDemocrat Party.THF13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is not an acceptable term to refer to the Discovery Institute. The only people cited as using the term are bloggers. It is quite surprising that some people think this is a NPOV term.Veritasjohn16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Just stupid. Plus, tehre is probably some actualDisco Institute somewhere, surely.--ZayZayEM02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keizer Ghidorah →King Ghidorah

Mr.Radzilla keeps blanking it, so I assume that he wants it to be deleted. However, I don't know exactly why. I've asked the user to comment on it here.Bart133^(t)(c)20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is rather interesting. There is an actual toy by that name ([3][4]), and guessing by the handle of the blanker, my guess is that he would know. However, until an article is created for the subject, I say keep the redirect asKeizer andKaiser are equivalents ofKing. --Aarktica00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per the links above, obviously "Keizer" is somewhat used making this redirect is useful --ChrisDHDR ^{( •contrib's)}09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Welcome →Template:Welcome WPKorea

Cross space redirect.PC7818:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless a better reason for deletion is given. Wikipedia namespace to Template namespace redirection isn't a big deal. It's only when CNRs gofrom the encyclopediainto the project works that I see a problem with CNRs simply because they're CNRs. Should WikiProject Korea actually want this redirect gone, then they ought to say so.BigNate37_(T)19:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect serves no meaningful purpose, certainly not as a search term, and has only one incoming link from an archived talk page (which can be fixed). If it counts I'm a WikiProject Korea member, though I can certainly raise the matter with other members if you wish.PC7820:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to neutral.BigNate37_(T)01:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless.Kusma (talk)20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harmless is not a valid argument for keeping a random redirect. Redirects are cheap, so we set the bar for keepingvery low, but there still has to besome reason, however unlikely.Xtifr_tälk23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: useless, obviously just a leftover from an early, non-template-space version (see the history). Serves no purpose whatsoever where it is. A less controversial deletion is hard to imagine; this borders on housekeeping.Xtifr_tälk23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like its just a left-over from a test page that got moved. No incoming link, most likely none will come, not a search item... looks useless. -Nabla00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above --ChrisDHDR ^{( •contrib's)}09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]