The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cross-namespace redirect. Standard practice is to get rid of these because "Unusual articles" should not appear to be a part of the encyclopedia. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 10, for anyone interested. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no decent reason not to. --MacRusgail (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons as the last time this was discussed. It documents a very old pagemove. The theoretical concerns about cross-namespace redirects are less than the very real and practical concerns about GFDL compliance and preservation of historical links (internal and external). Rossami (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it enriches Wikipedia. -- carlos-alberto-teixeira (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for essentially useful historical reasons. --MCB (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful redirect.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is useful.JDowning (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Redirect from project-namespace to help-namespace not allowed --Church of emacs (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (procedural listing, this was a CSD tag) —Random832 17:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify this: I was referring to Wikipedia:Redirects#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F, point 5 on the list. --Church of emacs (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there is a better reason for deletion. It doesn't seem to be in the way of an encyclopedia article on this topic (but if it were, the redirect could be overwritten without deleting the pagehistory). The inbound links do seem to refer to the user style page appropriately. The section you refer to recommends against cross-namespace redirects as a general rule but explicitly does not forbid them and must be considered in balance with the "keep if" criteria in the second half of the list. Given the age and history of the redirect, a number of established editors have found it to be at least marginally helpful. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is also another option: A redirect to MediaWiki. This way, we can keep the page, and the redirect does not violate the rule --Church of emacs (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, There are some things that many users will mistakenly look for in the article namespace. The main reason we don't have cross redirects is to avoid self-references. With stuff like this, we'd be hurting ourselves more than helping. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Never heard of him referred to as Kenny Bruce. I doubt anyone else has either, so it seems pointless having this as a redirect. Egdirf (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously is referred to this occasionally. But in hindsight perhaps the redirect isn't needed. Tom Green (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Part of a large list of unnecessary "Your mom" redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs)

• Keep - the phrase itself is not notable, but I could plausibly see someone looking it up to see where it came from, so the redirect is useful. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless. There is no obvious connection between these... it is obviously a joke/random redirect. — Steven Evens ^(contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the collection... -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all but 3 - no consensus on Ur mum, Ur mom, and Jo mama. WjBscribe 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Ur mom goes to college → Napoleon Dynamite
• Ur mom lol → Mother insult
• Ur mom → Mother insult
• Ur mum → Mother insult
• Your mother sucks cock in hell → The Exorcist (film)

  It's a line from the film, although this redirect was most likely created for shock value alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs)

• Actually I thought it was "cocks" but... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your mum's face → Mother insult
• Jo mama → Mother insult
• Your MOM → Mother insult
• Your dog → The dozens

These were all nominated individually by User:Floaterfluss. See also above, leaving split because it had already received a comment. —Random832 18:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Silly and unlikely to be encyclopedic. Victuallers (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sophomoric. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the collections starting from the last one which is the most annoying! -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ur mum, Ur mom, and Jo mama. Silly, yes, but not unconceivable that someone might actually look up such things in an honest attempt to find out what they mean. Delete the rest. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have created the typo redirect Unites States, which inspired the creation of the United Stated redirect as a result of its deletion vote/discussion. Now I believe the redirects are counter-productive, as they make it more likely for these misspellings to remain undetected by editors (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Unites States, Special:Whatlinkshere/United Stated). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You raise an interesting question here. Should we make life easier for editors (by making such mistakes more visible by making them redlinks) or easier for readers (by taking them to the right page regardless of the typo)? Historically, the balance of opinion has been in favor of readers at the expense of editors. The project is now more mature and more heavily linked than it was when the early standard was established. It's fair to ask whether the old standard is still appropriate. Shifting the standard in favor of editors may be more feasible now.
  However, I think this is a much larger question than just these two examples. You are asking us to reconsider a core part of the policy on Redirects. Making a decision just on these two without considering the larger question would create a confusing and inconsistent precedent. I recommend closing this nomination in favor of a centralized discussion on the proper role of redirects for typos (and use these two as examples). Rossami (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. The other solution would be to have these misspellings automatically corrected by some bot, such as CmdrObot. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Number of possible mistype redirects could grow without limit, especially for location names. Only those very likely or very common typos should be handled. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't encourage typos. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Apparently part of Terry Wogan's nickname for one of his colleagues - the full title being "Fran Godfrey - Traffic Totty and Mimi (Me, me, me, me, me...)" But surely it is one that could be applied to any female traffic presenter. And who's really going to type all that in anyway? Egdirf (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a genuine nickname. It's not doing any harm. MSGJ (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by the nominator. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links with 's' on the end are automatically redirected, so there's no need to have a redirect page. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No, they don't. –Pomte 08:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, my mistake - I got it mixed up with the other thingy... *Shuffles feet* I'll remove the banner and I withdraw this RfD. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Redirect not likely to be typed. Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I added it because I typed it by accident, and the redirect would have saved me a few seconds and likely others. It makes sense to delete it if you want to replace it with something of substance, but "illie Nelson" is only one letter different than "Willie Nelson" and seems okay as a redirect. —Preceding --Swampyank (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Swampyank (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible typo. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It may be plausible, but it's also the sort that anyone ought to be able to notice and correct themselves. Every has anywhere from a handful to hundreds of plausible typos, so that use for a redirect should be reserved for confusing cases, not easily corrected ones. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my above nomination, I don't think Wikipedia should serve as a spellchecker. Mispellings (or misnomers) that are in actual use have a point in being redirected (i.e. Mother Theresa, Cemetary); this one is a simple typo and I don't find it useful. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you typo you will not get what you want. It's the normal way of things, live with it. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no problems with some sound-like typos in names, like [[Nicole Kidmann] which redirects to Nicole Kidman, but this is out of the limits because this is just a typing error. Sorry for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was disambiguate. WjBscribe 03:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Kuklos can refer to several things. I don't see why this would redirect to Milky Way. Enigmaman (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Google turns up a surprising number of references and usages of that word. Perhaps the page should be changed from a simple redirect to a disambiguation page? I'm hesitant to do so personally because I can't easily verify most of the google references but if you know better, be bold. If we can make a useful disambig page, there is no reason to delete the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that it should be a disambiguation page, but I don't know enough to be able to create a useful one. Enigmaman (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nonsense redirect. I can see why this was added, but COME ON.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs)

• Yeah, delete. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I mean, that's what it is :) . I know it's vulgar, but I'm not sure it's wrong, per se. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another excellent contribution of User:SPUI. :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How is this nonsense? A perfectly valid redirect. -- Ned Scott 08:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This redirect is not useful and was added just for its sake. Delete as unnecessary and unprofessional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as the target article exists, I can't see how this redirect can be seen as inappropriate, redirects are cheap. That said, the target article is just a dicdef and some random pieces of trivia. Taemyr (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Kurt Shaped Box (talk · contribs). —Random832 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely to be a vandalism redirect. Delete immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 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 delete. WjBscribe 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unnecessary redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs)

• Delete as unnecessary. I believe that this existed because this was how the entry was at IMDb, but it no longer exists. (In comparison, there exists entries like Untitled Michael Mann Project.) Due to the Stephen Sommers projects being titled at IMDb, the redirect's not necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No one will ever use that search string. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't know crap about the movie or what the movie will be based on, but I do know that few people would start looking for untitled. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

While this line has become very popular on the internet and originated to this episode, it's a bit much to have it redirect here. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Agreed Victuallers (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted and protected as nonsense/vandalism (together with Your anus). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your Anus → Anus
• Youranus → Uranus

Again, ha ha. Very funny. Delete this. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Joke. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enigmaman (talk) 20:30, 7 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 I see the point (it refers to a name of one Uncyclopedia article), but still deleted as nonsense. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vandal redirect. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, nonsense. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vandalism. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 8 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Seriously, what? Delete this. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a literal translation of the original Japanese game title. I should've speedily deleted it as an implausable typo when I moved the page back in April. Marasmusine (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided it is a literal translation. Someone might actually paste this from translation software or whatever, and redirects are cheap. Might be preferrable to tag the rd somehow though. Taemyr (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

A redirect to a band page who wrote a song called "I Am Cow". Not only is this un-noteworthy, but it's uncapitalized. Delete this. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalize. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In theory, you can move a redirect however it leaves a double redirect at the old title, so deletion is necessary to change the name of a redirect (I think). --Thinboy00 @251, i.e. 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unnecessary redirect. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as plausible search term. A lot of people know about it, but many probably don't know it to be called the liar('s) paradox, and this is the shortest way of expressing it. –Pomte 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as above Victuallers (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as above. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per This statement is false. --Thinboy00 @252, i.e. 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Completely unnecessary. Delete this. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please spend more time explaining HOW it's unnecessery. This scene often comes to mind when somebody is talking about this movie. I really hate it when people just nominate stuff and give short reasons like "unnecessery", please explain how it's not needed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the only connection is that it's a line from the movie, then delete because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, fine, but could you mind explaining the existence of "Redirects from phrases"? I thought that category should be used for redirects from quotes. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only 39 entries in that category. I'm really not sure why the template was created in the first place. My guess is that someone was bold, the idea never caught on and no one remembered to clean up the experiment. Should we perhaps pose this as a centralized discussion and put the template, category and redirects up for a consolidated discussion? It would be nice to get a consistent answer. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

True, it was Chevy Chase's catchphrase, and is mentioned in the Chevy Chase article, but this is simply too non-noteworthy to warrant an actual redirect. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Surely we don't create links from even the most notable quotations to the people who said them. But in any case, the creator of this link (User:Wiarthurhu) was a notoriously abusive editor and sockpuppeteer until he got a lifetime block about a year ago. Feel free to just dump it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a only a quote. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. you guys take stuff too seriously. case in point: I've made thousands of edits on wikipedia via anoher account. but you'll prob be like "uh. only the acccount you'r using counts. uhhh. wikipedia is real serious business uhhhhhhh." yeah. so, therefore- ok, it's no big if you delete. I'm just saying. get outta your house and get laid if you haven't already. if you have, my apologies. aight. holler.BoogerNation 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Related, but completely non-noteworthy for a redirect. A Google search for "I'm the Bishop of Southwark, it's what I do" only returns 124 Google hits. Delete this. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishop of Southwark already disambiguates to this subject. The rest is a mere quote. Delete because Wikipedia is not WikiQuote. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unnecessary redirect. If it redirects to anything, it should redirect to something cartography-related. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete target not informative as to where "you are here" is used. –Pomte 10:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Until we get a better target, this should be kept. "You are here" is very common on maps in malls for example. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PN --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the current target makes sense. If a better target is found, redirect to that. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, how about Maps or something map related? Do we haven an article for common map keys? -- Ned Scott 05:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, found Japanese map symbols, but no general list. I'll keep looking. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We can make infinite similar: "Your are xxx"" → xxx. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There really aren't variations on this.. it's an element of a map, not a phrase. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Non-notable redirect to a track, and in all lowercase. Delete. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with above reasoning. Enigmaman (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Capitalize. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. WjBscribe 03:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not the primary usage of KOZ Enigmaman (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are other notable uses of the term, then a disambiguation page would seem to be more helpful. Be bold. You don't have to delete the pagehistory to do that. Rossami (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My point is that it's not a good redirect. If I had the expertise to create a disambiguation page for KOZ, of course I would do that. Enigmaman (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see many articles that could be abbreviated by "KOZ" (just a few people named Koz). For now, I am creating the disambiguation page Koz; if you can find some other articles to add, feel free to; otherwise, KOZ as a redirect to Confederation of Trade Unions of the Slovak Republic is as good as anything else. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was retarget to Metallica discography. WjBscribe 00:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Not needed. David Pro (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Metallica discography. David Pro (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Metallica discography; seems to have been merged back and forth in 2002, so cannot be deleted. –Pomte 10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not needed, indeed. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted and protected as garbage; if the existence of the Uncyclopedia article of the same title were a concern, the creator could have asked for it to be added to protected titles. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redir. David Pro (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Enigmaman (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as Uncyclopedia vandalism. (Yes, I saw that the creator said this was to "prevent" vandalism. I don't buy it.) Rossami (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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