Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Votes for page murder → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete; man, that's some speedy snow.--Aervanath (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very unlikely search term (created way back in 2004) and a possible nonsense redirect. Richard0612 20:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various redirects → Gynecomastia[edit]

  1. Bitch Tits
  2. Manboobs
  3. Manboob
  4. Moobs
  5. Man boob
  6. Man boobs
  7. Man tit
  8. Man tits
  9. M00b
  10. M00bz
  11. Man titties
  12. Man titty
  13. Man-boobs
  14. Man bewbs
The result of the discussion was Keep all They are considered in general to be useful with respect to navigation and recreation and even for the more uncommon ones there isn't really consensus to delete. Interested editors may want to discuss specific entries further. Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect, needs to be deleted. All males have "boobs", they don't need to have that disorder. Also a little derogatory for someone with that disorder. Tavix (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • note Bitch Tits is common body-builders slang for Gynecomastia, and the phrase was used in Fight Club to refer to the condition. No opinion on k/d as I don't know how RFD works. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How interesting that this RfD was initiated today, the same day that I noted at Talk:Moobs that that particular term is achieving some notability. I have no particular axe to grind about whether it is or is not the same as gynecomastia, although I note RS saying it is. However, I was considering creating an article over the redirect, reflecting that it is probably a notable neologism. There is an important difference between Moobs and Gynecomastia in terms of usage, in that the latter is a diagnostic technical terminology and the former a jocular/derogatory/popularism. I was thinking about posting at the VP as I did before creating Meh to ascertain support. All of which is a distraction perhaps from the main thrust of this RfD - I'd welcome some comment at my talk page on the subject from anyone who cares! Apologies for being somewhat off-topic. --Dweller (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. If they are alternative names for the same thing, one being slang the other not, then there should be exactly one encyclopaedia article, about the thing that they name. Please devote your energies to man boob and moob if you want to write a dictionary of slang and write usage notes for slang words and idioms. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to keep, as they appear to be actually used by some people: Bitch Tits, Manboobs, Manboob, Moobs, Man boob, Man boobs. Delete the rest. flaminglawyer 20:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are all terms that are used (well, not sure about the spellings involving zeroes, but certainly the others), that might be searched for, and for which a redirect is better than a bunch of mistakenly-created stubs. Pseudomonas(talk) 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Man boob and Moob are common slang terms, and most of the rest are variants of various degrees of plausibility. PaulJones (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones with zeros or "bewbs" as implausible search terms, Keep the rest as common slang. Mike R (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the ones with zeroes already went through AFD and was deleted, note. See M00b (AfD discussion). Whatever the fate, it should be consistent for m00b and m00bz.

    Similarly, Manboobs (AfD discussion) has also been through AFD and was deleted, and re-created as a redirect to prevent the repeated re-creation of unencyclopaedic articles (as has happened at man boobs three times already, note).

    As Moob (AfD discussion) already indicates, though, this is one of the several romanizations of the name of the Hmong. So there's obviously some discussion to be had as to where moobs should redirect, depending from how that romanization pluralizes. Uncle G (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Arbitration enforcement → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement[edit]

The result of the discussion was Redirected to better target

Delete. A cross namespace redirect that is not useful - possibly the article-space location/redirect for a future encyclopedia article about enforcement of binding arbitration in the real world. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Change to point to Arbitration pending article on this topic. As a cross namespace redirect, it is not only against strong convention, but also highly misleading. Virtually anyone looking for Arbitration enforcement will be wanting more general information, found at Arbitration and at websites such as http://www.lawarbitration.net/. This will only serve to confuse and discourage people looking to Wikipedia for information. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Folks, following my contribs like this is just silly. You could have easily just changed the redirect to Arbitration yourselves, and avoided the fuss of an RfD, which is pretty much a WP:POINT violation. I've gone ahead and changed the redirect to point to the other target, let's close this RfD and move on, k? --Elonka 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Not the bees → The Wicker Man (2006 film)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed R3 request as an implausible misnomer was denied. The quote is from the film it redirects too, however, if there was to be a redirect for each quote from every film, Wikipedia would soon be nothing but redirects. Also, what would happen for the same quote from different films? JD554 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - if phrase were widely reported in reviews of the movie, or if it were stated in its entirety in the target article, this would be a keeper as a plausible search item (the fact that "bees" is mentioned twice in the target hints that the phrase is said - yelled? - at a climactic point in the film), but since it is not put into proper context in the article, I would tend to lean toward deletion. If it is a key quotation in the film, I'll change my recommendation after the context/significance is put into the target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per 147 - I have not seen the movie, I've only seen the original. I am unable to determine how likely/unlikely it would be for someone to search using this. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the line were notable enough to be a redirect, it would be notable enough to be discussed in the article. Mike R (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike R. GlassCobra 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it even though it won't bring our Goddamn honey back. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Gahlotarun → User:Gahlotarun/article[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete G2--Aervanath (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a result of userification of test page in project space Mayalld (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

England leeds mission → England Leeds Mission[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Creating these kinds of redirects is established Wiki policy.--Aervanath (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting this. It's clearly an early attempt from an editor who then realized that the capitalized version was better. This version has no incoming links and is not really adding anything. Very recent, no significant edit history. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Srebrenica genocide → Srebrenica massacre[edit]

The result of the discussion was wrong forum. User:Seha seems to be requesting a rename of Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide, but came here to request deletion of the redirect first. The proper forum is Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Srebrenica genocide has been declared as such by the EU and UN. For source look at EU Parliement Press release here. To redirect Srebrenica massacre to genocide there is a need for deletion of Srebrenica genocide wich was as such declarated by the UN, EU and the High Court for formal Yugoslavia in case of the indictment against Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadic Seha (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ummm.... Let me try to understand what you are proposing here. Are you stating that you wish to A) delete the redirect and move the target to the redirect's name, or B) reverse the redirect so that the two have essentially "swapped places"? I have taken a look at both the text and the talk page of the target and have come away with a couple of observations: 1) The two terms are synonymous according to the first sentence of the article, and 2) this has been a "hot button topic" with periodic arguments over the same ideas. I offer this: 1) Redirects to synonyms are perfectly fine, and generally there is no real reason to delete under those conditions; 2) I would not recommend any action which would result in not having a one term redirect to its synonym; 3) a noncontroversial reversal of a redirect can be accomplished by tagging the redirect as CSD G6 (housekeeping) and putting in the edit notes a request to reverse the redirect; 4) I would strongly suggest not even thinking that such a reversal in this case would be noncontroversial given the edit histories of both the current target and its talk page... unless consensus can be reached beforehand (I'd suggest a request for some feedback from Wikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina on this). As for my recommendation regarding this RfD, I'd recommend... to do nothing until there is a consensus for a possible move of the target article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_28&oldid=1142588037"