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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Templates in Wikipedia → Wikipedia:Template messages (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Pointless cross-namespace redirect B (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have alerted the creator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redirects from article to project space are never a good idea since inexperienced users can easily find themselves adrift in unfamiliar territory. There is no sensible retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't agree that they are never a good idea (I would say "almost" never a good idea) nor that they would create a problem for inexperienced users, this particular one is completely pointless self reference. Someone looking for templates might look for template (which has a link to the relevant help page), but would not search for "templates in Wikipedia". --B (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Converted to article. Fleet Command (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (NAC)[reply]

• MSN Money → MSN (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Although MSN Money is a part of MSN, redirecting people to MSN makes no sense at all: MSN article contains no info about MSN Money. I considered redirecting to List of MSN Services but that would be equally making no sense. After all, everyone who hears the name "MSN Money" already realizes that it is an MSN service. Why redirect people to an article which has nothing on MSN Money? Fleet Command (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of MSN Services#Services. This was formerly an article and I have merged the previous content and added a source. For GFDL reasons we need to keep the history somewhere and this redirect is the most convenient method. I do not see this site as being sufficiently notable for its own page, so there is no benefit in having a red link and the retarget is potentially useful. I would add that this redirect gets a lot of hits, so it is well used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? What GFDL reason? Fleet Command (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you going to tell us about these GFDL reasons? Well, if you don't, I'll have no choice but to assume what seems logical to me: That there is no GFDL reason whatsoever to prevent us from deleting this redirect; and that you are merely emotional about keeping this redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, Wikipedia:Red link says red links help expand Wikipedia. So, I'd rather have a red link instead of an annoying redirect. In time, we can always delete an annoying redirect AND unlink all links to it, if it is ever needed. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am still awaiting your explanation, BridgePlayer. Fleet Command (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, we should have an article on MSN Money, shouldn't we? bd2412 T 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Converted back to an article - initially (see above), I didn't think that there were enough sources to support an article. However, having dug deeper, there is quite a bit about of stuff about, certainly enough to support a worthwhile stub. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That means this RfD is no longer valid. Nontheless, I'm still curious as to what was your GFDL reason. Fleet Command (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Teh Butt Seckz → Internet slang (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Totally frivolous redirect of no value.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not mentioned in the target. Though a used term, we have nothing to offer on it and the redirect is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Teh ghey → Gay (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect should be deleted as an implausible typo or uncommon synonym. It appears to me that this is a combination of the Internet slang words teh and ghey. エムエックスさん 話 07:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We seem to be a little schizophrenic on these: Teh suck redirects to Teh, Teh Suxxorz to Internet Slang, and Teh pr0n is a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I'd be fine with deleting them on the principle that Wikipedia ≠ Urban Dictionary. I've also nominated Teh Butt Seckz, which was the most worthless of these that I found.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not mentioned in the target. Though a used term, we have nothing to offer on it and the redirect is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to earlier soft redirect to Wikt:ghey--Rumping (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. And besides, this term does not fall into the scope of ((wi)), i.e. it is not one of those dictionary definitions which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form.

    In addition, it seems to me that the right thing to do is to nominate that Wiktionary entry for deletion as well: There are lot of plays with words around, but that doesn't mean those words should be added to a dictionary. For example, just because Bernard Shaw once wrote "ghoti" (as an alternative form of "Fish") doesn't mean that "ghoti" should be added to Wiktionary.

    Fleet Command (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I see no value in a soft redirect, either. bd2412 T 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge dick → Human penis size (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong ^spout 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an extremely unlikely redirect which borders on vandalism. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gigantic penis → Human penis size (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong ^chatter 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge penis → Human penis size (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong ^confabulate 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - point 8 applies to a "novel or very obscure synonym". I don't find this term either novel nor particularly obscure. Plenty of hits, here, so sufficient potential for someone wishing to look this up. This redirect gets around 1,000 hits a month so it is plainly used as a search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could be talking about horse penises in those "special" porn videos. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - sorry, but my judgement is that the high probability is that the searches were aimed at the target. Very many redirects have remote alternative meanings, but we can't cover all bases and when, as here, there is a target that is highly likely to be the prime use, then that is sufficient. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is arguing that if you type "Huge penis" into google, you're not going to get a billion results. That really has no relevance to this discussion. The question is whether or not "Huge penis" is a valid redirect to Human penis size. The adjectives "big", "huge", "massive", "gigantic", "9-inch", etc. combined with various slang terms for penis are exactly what I would consider novel and obscure. If someone was truly looking for Human penis size, they would most likely search for something like "penis size" or "size of penis" or "penis size stats", not "Huge penis". SnottyWong ^speak 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it looks as though I am being followed down this page with pro-forma comments, I guess that a pro-forma reply is reasonable. In my view many of these terms, but not all as distinguished in my comments, are entirely plausible search terms, particularly as borne out by the stats. What may or may not be the most likely search term actually doesn't matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure whose comments you are referring to as "pro-forma", but mine certainly were not meant to be. What the most likely search term is doesn't really matter, however it does matter if the search term is particularly unlikely. This is why we don't redirect Apple to Orange. If you think that this redirect is a plausible search term, then I imagine you won't mind if I create the following similar redirects:

List of similar redirects for Human penis size Ample anaconda Bulky boner Capacious choad Colossal chubby Copious cornholer Enormous ding-a-ling Excessive doinker Extensive dong Generous dork Giant hard-on Gigantic hog Grand johnson Hefty knob Huge love muscle Humongous main vein Immeasurable meat popsicle Immense member Jumbo one-eyed monster Massive pecker Monumental pocket rocket Mountainous prick Plentiful rod Sizable schlong Spacious schmeckel Stupendous shaft Substantial skin flute Thumping tallywhacker Vast tonsil tickler Voluminous tool Wide trouser snake Weighty wang Big wiener 14-inch willy

SnottyWong ^converse 04:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete all of them per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole bunch. They're all extremely unlikely redirects, bordering on vandalism. Some of them are quite funny, but they certainly do not belong in an encyclopaedia Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all - They're all just made up, no-one uses terms like that. I hope. Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made that list to make a point? You, sir, clearly have too much time on your hands. Still, delete it anyway. Per nom, Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge cock → Human penis size (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R#DELETE, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - point 8 applies to a "novel or very obscure synonym". When even the staid Guardian uses this phrase, it is unlikely to be either novel nor particularly obscure and is certainly a plausible search term. A few hundred hits each month mean that is is used and I see no grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is arguing that if you type "Huge cock" into google, you're not going to get a billion results. That really has no relevance to this discussion. The question is whether or not "Huge cock" is a valid redirect to Human penis size. The adjectives "big", "huge", "massive", "gigantic", "9-inch", etc. combined with various slang terms for penis are exactly what I would consider novel and obscure. If someone was truly looking for Human penis size, they would most likely search for something like "penis size" or "size of penis" or "penis size stats", not "Huge cock". SnottyWong ^comment 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it looks as though I am being followed down this page with pro-forma comments, I guess that a pro-forma reply is reasonable. In my view many of these terms, but not all as distinguished in my comments, are entirely plausible search terms, particularly as borne out by the stats. What may or may not be the most likely search term actually doesn't matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure whose comments you are referring to as "pro-forma", but mine certainly were not meant to be. What the most likely search term is doesn't really matter, however it does matter if the search term is particularly unlikely. This is why we don't redirect Apple to Orange. If you think that this redirect is a plausible search term, then I imagine you won't mind if I create the following similar redirects:

List of similar redirects for Human penis size Ample anaconda Bulky boner Capacious choad Colossal chubby Copious cornholer Enormous ding-a-ling Excessive doinker Extensive dong Generous dork Giant hard-on Gigantic hog Grand johnson Hefty knob Huge love muscle Humongous main vein Immeasurable meat popsicle Immense member Jumbo one-eyed monster Massive pecker Monumental pocket rocket Mountainous prick Plentiful rod Sizable schlong Spacious schmeckel Stupendous shaft Substantial skin flute Thumping tallywhacker Vast tonsil tickler Voluminous tool Wide trouser snake Weighty wang Big wiener 14-inch willy

SnottyWong ^squeal 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could be talking about horse penises in those "special" porn videos. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - with respect, it could also be talking about a large rooster, but the high probability is that the searches were aimed at the target. Very many redirects have remote alternative meanings, but we can't cover all bases and when, as here, there is a target that is highly likely to be the prime use, then that is sufficient. Having said that, there is a conceivable disamb page here, and that can be created, at any time, if alternative uses are considered sufficiently likely. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete them all per Criterion for Speedy Deletion, G3: Blatant hoax or pure vandalism. Fleet Command (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole bunch. They're all extremely unlikely redirects, bordering on vandalism. Some of them are quite funny, but they certainly do not belong in an encyclopaedia Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - none of these, apart from the heading, exist - they were part of a straw-man argument by the nominator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh! And I assumed good faith! Speedy delete the nominator too. {:Demonic laughter:} Fleet Command (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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 no consensus. However, based on the discussion, it appears that deletion is off the table, and so this can be settled via regular editing and discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Find-me anywhere → Roaming (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Created by banned User:Mac, I believe this redirect meets the deletion criterion "a novel or very obscure synonym." My Google search reveals no real world use of term, save for a Facebook page that someone (Mac?) has created to promote this very term, with a sole member. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Might it be connected to the service mentioned at Telephone numbers in Australia#Personal numbers (05)? Similar usage appears to come up everywhere from a House of Commons document (paragraph 27) to this 2008 BBC piece to this 1994 NY Times article. From what I've seen, Roaming isn't a very good target, and I'm not sure we have any other article that is.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Personal numbering which deals directly with this concept. Mind you, that page needs expanding to broaden its coverage to include the different Australia number and no doubt other countries, but that is a separate editorial matter. Ofcom mentions it here and I don't find it particularly novel nor obscure. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Use same target as Follow-me (currently Private branch exchange#PBX functions though that might not be best)--Rumping (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Glaciers of the Gambia → Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Africa (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Glaciers of Côte d'Ivoire → Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Africa (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Glaciers of Cape Verde → Retreat of glaciers since 1850#Africa (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete per previous WP:RFD discussions (Glaciers of Gabon, Glaciers of many). Sideways713 (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - confusing redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, confusing redirects for which the target provides no substantial information.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• EBOY-TV → WBOY-TV (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible and bad redirect. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's mentioned on some guy named Bray Cary's profile page and a handful of copies thereof, but appears to be a spelling mistake, and I can't find any evidence that any such thing exists. I notice that the creator of this redirect created Bray Cary shortly before (which, BTW, I've tagged as a copyvio of [1]). Confusing and unhelpful, as well as implausible because U.S. television station call letters cannot start with E.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• GTRF-TV → WTRF-TV (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible and bad redirect. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments on EBOY-TV; likewise doesn't exist.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ETRF-TV → WTRF-TV (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible and bad redirect. Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments on EBOY-TV; likewise doesn't exist.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 rendered moot, because no longer a redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinga → The X-Files (season 5) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion. Chinga is the Spanish F-word, and so its use far exceeds a 20-year old shark jumping. If anything, redirect it to the English F-word. Mrcolj (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Spanish profanity#Verbs denoting sexual acts, and then put the following hatnote on top of it: ((Redirect|Chinga|the 1998 ''X-Files'' episode|The X-Files (season 5))). I agree that the profanity seems like a much more probably intended target for this query. It would also be nice, if this is the decision, to update the seven or so pages that link to Chinga.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Converted to disambiguation page. I am not an expert on Spanish profanity, but I am not convinced that this is the prime use, particularly after looking at the incoming links and a Gsearch. I have, therefore, dabified it which seems a much more helpful option. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the now existing disambiguation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the disambig (although the discussion would seem to be mooted by the absence of a redirect to delete at all, now). bd2412 T 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

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