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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of List of weapons → Lists of weapons  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary. JZCL 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - would be a suitable title for a "list of lists" article (see WP:LIST) but the target already duplicates that topic. There's even a List of lists of lists. Ivanvector (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the target is indeed a list of lists of weapons -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 16 February 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) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Important works of higher classification (insects) → Entomology  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Unnecessary. JZCL 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the links, it was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arthropods/Archive_2#attention needed bz User:DGG back in August 2007, who noted that " A fuller explanation and context is needed, or else integration into some existing article", but there was no further discussion. It was then moved to List of works of higher classification of insects in December 2008 by User:UnitedStatesian, creating this redirect, although it's not marked as ((R from move)): a bot fixed the double-redirect in April 2010 after that itself was changed from an article to a redirect (to Entomology) with this edit.

The only place it is used is in Timeline_of_entomology_–_1800–50, where it is in fact piped (as "important work of higher classification").

Considering all this, I'm inclined weakly to Delete as confusing (WP:RFD#D2), since the target is not in fact an important work of higher classification (insects). Probably its use in the article should simply be unlinked (or the opinion presented as fact, without reference, in which it is used – "this was an important work of higher classification" – can be cut entirely). Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Important" is inherently subjective and unsourceable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:11, 15 February 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) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of things in the Ender's Game series → Ender's Game (series)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Not worth being a redirect JZCL 21:43, 14 February 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) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• List of things which are neither production nor consumption → Anthropological theories of value  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Bit too much of a wordy redirect JZCL 21:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vague. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SYNTHESIS. There is a list in Anthropological theories of value#David Graeber's value as "meaning-making", but that section is not referenced. Graeber's book Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, is in the "Further Reading" section, but could be better referenced:

• Graeber, David (2001). Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value (PDF). Palgrave. ISBN 0-312-24044-9.

However, having looked through this, the list given in that section does not appear in any shape or form, and most of the entries here appear nowhere in the whole book: indeed, the phrase "meaning making" (or "meaning-making" or other likely variant) is not present in the book. ("Meaningful difference" is quoted as a gloss for "value" (p. 2 and elsewhere); Sex and marriage are discussed a lot, and makeup a bit; chapter 2, "Current Directions in Exchange Theory", and Note 27 (p. 267) comes close to a definition. So I am not convinced this is the source of that list, and it may be pure WP:SYNTHESIS: certainly looking at Talk:Anthropological theories of value#The List, it appears so. Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is presumably the Owens ref that has the list. With this edit I've rearranged the article a little to put the refs inline (making a subsection Anthropological theories of value#List of things which are neither production nor consumption), but the Owens paper is (subscription required) and I still think it's WP:SYNTHESIS judging by the talk page, to which I have added Talk:Anthropological_theories_of_value#RfD_for_List_of_things_which_are_neither_production_nor_consumption referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note we do not have Anthropological theory of value, in the singular. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because there is nothing more vague than "things." — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 February 2015‎

• thingies? Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vague and confusing at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:43, 16 February 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 Keep and refine target. Refining target to 1908#Births. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• People who were born in the year 1908 → 1908  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No other year has this redirect JZCL 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicates Category:1908 births. Ivanvector (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per IvanVictor. Si Trew (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine target to 1908#Births. Per WP:CLN, lists and categories should not be considered duplicated effort. We don't need to have this for any other years, but any reader searching for this term is undoubtedly looking for just such a list. Deleting this redirect does them a real disservice. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine per BDD. This is completely harmless and will be useful to some people. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. That is better. Ivanvector (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine target per BDD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 18 February 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) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's eat some food → Chow Chow  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Could someone who understands the connection between these two pages please explain it? Bossanoven (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone who understands the connection could explain it, but the permise of the question is questionable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the "chow chow" part was intended to be Chow-chow (food), but that's only one part of it. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. Retarget to eating? Probably not a likely search term, but it's not new. Definitely shouldn't target to an article on a breed of dog. Ivanvector (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:RFD#D5, "the redirect makes no sense". Also, "chow chow", as pidgin Chinese-English, is not a translation of "Let's eat some food", and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary or phrase book. Neither is it a guide book. Si Trew (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing. Closest possible target that I got is RSVP (invitations) but this invitation to eat is very formal. This redirect also made me hungry. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:33, 16 February 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.