The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yet another redirect with quotes. A redirect with the same name without quotes already exists making this one useless. All similar cases were deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet another redirect with unnecessary quotes. -- Nips (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Completing incomplete nomination by an anon on 27 January.— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominated the third a few minutes later. 1/18/08 (now redirecting to January 18) was added by another party, but I concur with the deletion. Othe "delete all" !votes might not include that one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 01-18-08 can be WAY more than just the release date of this movie. The release date isn't notable enough to deserve a redirect. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Although this has previously been nominated for deletion and kept, at that time, "1-18-08" was a code name for the movie under which it was then publicly discussed. Since the film has since been released and given an actual title, many of the considerations of the earlier RFD discussion do not apply. No one is likely to be searching based on an old code name of the movie. I would suggest adding a line or two to the Cloverfield article to document the code name (since it spawned web sites using the code name and was discussed under the code name), but delete the referral pages. TJRC (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not the only notable thing on this date, therefore it shouldn't be the redirect of. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as said by TheBlazikenMaster Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. 1-18-08 is simply a tagline/release date for the movie. WAY more notable stuff has happened on January 18. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 01:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Article was a copy and paste of Gloucestershire and should have been speedy deletion nominated as a copyvio. Although I know this term and I've never been to Whaddon Road we certainly don't need a Wikipedia article on it and we don't need to waste time debating so you folks really should have tried harder to find a way to zap it ;) kingboyk (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke, and may result in confusion amongst those not familiar with English geography. It's an implausible misnomer, and is not in common use anywhere obvious. Some remarks in the edit history indicate that it's an in-joke amongst Cheltenham Town F.C. supporters, and Google supports this, however it is never used as a genuine name for a county and it will not be verifiable. The article as originally created was a parody of Gloucestershire, and was linked in by a pattern of (intended humorous) vandalism in related pages. It has been flagged for proposed deletion, but that proposal was withdrawn when it was replaced with a redirect. Behind The Wall Of Sleep (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. On reflection my first instinct (prod) was right and I should not have withdrawn it and replaced with a redirect. Nominator is quite right, it is a phrase that is only used by a very small number people, namely supporters of Cheltenham Town & I have never heard it outside Whaddon Road; no-one else would even know of it let alone try to find a wikipedia page on it. nancy ^(talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Wiktionary. VegaDark (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Redirect to obesity was speedily deleted as CSD G10. This deletion was overturned at DRV, but there remains a question on if this redirect is appropriate. The arguments revolve around it being an unlikely search term and there being other possible targets (e.g., corvettes and motorcycles). IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect to Wiktionary Dumbass is redirected to Wiktionary, fatass can too. But I'd rather have this kept. It is very common insult for a fat person. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "fatass" and "dumbass" should not be in Wikipedia. If you insist, point to Wiktionary, but not to obesity. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop assuming that Dumbass is in Wikipedia, it isn't. It's redirected, just like Fatass could be. Why are people assuming that redirects to the outside are part of Wikipedia itself? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to Wiktionary. -- Ned Scott 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If kept, it should be linked to Wiktionary. Isn't redirecting Fatass to Obesity somewhat offensive as well? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offensive? That's not a valid reason for deletion in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how likely is it as a search term anyway. If it's kept, it should point to Wiktionary. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, that's a valid reason in my opinion. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

This redirect was probably created in error. There's no relationship between the title "No title" and the section of the article to which it is redirected, or to the article as a whole. It looks like an error that occurred when the editor merged the discography article Nami Tamaki Discography into the article on the artist Nami_Tamaki_Discography#Discography. TJRC (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This makes no sense at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect from creation. There shouldn't be anything with this title. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and prevent recreation per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. The title is confusing no matter what it redirects to. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 20:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no longer a redirect. WjBscribe 15:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

POV pushing redirect link, there's no such section in Linux article nor there should be: "criticism" articles and sections are discouraged per WP policy, and Linux is not an opera or art piece to have "criticism and praises" section. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn this back into an article until the Linux fans can finally admit criticism should be mentioned in the Linux articles. These articles being so whitewashed make Wikipedia look bad. --W.marsh 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as the criticisms are referenced, relevant and integrated into the article, not in a special "Criticism" section that's fine by me, the name of this link clearly promotes a specific POV (that's why there's a WP recommendation that criticism article/sections should be avoided -- that's pretty wise I would say). As it stands this is just a dead redirect to a section that doesn't even exist. As for blaming fans for whitewashing articles I think that goes against WP:AGF -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn this back into an article! Great, so you have opinions about "criticism articles", what is your opinion about there being criticism articles of one product but not its competitors? Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows The fact that we have 500 Criticism of Windows articles and zero criticisms of Linux makes Wikipedia look bad. Yes, windows deserves those criticisms, but people will think that wikipedia is biased for ONLY criticising them. Help make Wikipedia as a whole fair and balanced, and turn this back into an article! And make a criticism of OSX article! Hendrixski (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (Ubuntu Linux user)[reply]

  Since when the existence of a bad article is a good argument to keep another bad article? I'm against criticism sections and articles in general (as proof I fought against such stupidities on Firefox and Opera pages -- although I don't care for one of the browsers) Not to forget that this is a different situation, how encyclopedic is the criticism of a OS that's used by 1% of the people and how encyclopedic is the criticism of an OS used by > 90% ? I think that's a totally different situation. Sure, dismiss this as "fanboism" or whatever, but if you look careful at the arguments for creation of this article (and actually for keeping it) they fall in the POV type of arguments, basically: "we've not been able to push our POV on Linux page directly we'll push it on another page that attracts less scrutiny, so we might be successful there", or "Wikipedia will look bad if it doesn't give a false impression of balance even if that means promoting a bad article" which is basically what you just said. -- AdrianTM (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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