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--יודל 19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The crusade argument seems a bit overblown, but this is IMO speedily deletable under criterion R3 (recently created implausible typo). --Pekaje 19:43, 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^talk 20:22, 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 Liefting talk 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is POV (because it is used as derision) and it is non-notable. -- Alan Liefting talk 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anyone that knows me knows that I would do anything to make fun of the Discovery 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.--Filll 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 23 to Wikipedia: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, talk 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not even a COMMONNAME for the institute. --Aarktica 00:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh delete - misleading. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 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 Carter 14:48, 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 (on William 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 redirect does get deleted, a note should probably be added to the Discovery Institute page. 63.201.14.175 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I searched and only found "disco institute" used onceon 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. Veritasjohn 00:11, 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.--Filll 11:51, 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 something strong... 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 the Discovery Channel from the word disco 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.--יודל 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rewrite. I'm not a fan of the Discovery Institute, but only 593 Ghits, and no use by non-bloggers. Thus flunks WP: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. Compare Democrat Party. THF 13:25, 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. Veritasjohn 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Just stupid. Plus, tehre is probably some actual Disco Institute somewhere, surely.--ZayZayEM 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 as Keizer and Kaiser are equivalents of King. --Aarktica 00:30, 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]

Cross space redirect. PC78 18:16, 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 go from the encyclopedia into 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. PC78 20:19, 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 keeping very low, but there still has to be some reason, however unlikely. Xtifr _tälk 23:34, 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 _tälk 23:34, 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. - Nabla 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above --ChrisDHDR ^{( • contrib's)} 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]