The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There once was a German band using this name [1] but they are not related to the guitarist. No links to the RDR.----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a confusing redirect - unless a WP:BOLD editor decides to accept the challenge of writing an article about the band. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The artice about the band can be written at any time, but until then, this is a misleading/confusing redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Put a bucket over its head per above. (that means delete in case you aren't funny). Tavix (talk)

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

The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet✽ 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further human parts research. Also see:

• Clitty

At least it's not ten pages this time. Both are not linked to.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Κλειτορίς - foreign language redirect to an English-language topic... 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it seems not to be foreign only but Leetspeak also.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clitty - along with clit, it is a common abbreviation of clitoris. If you delete this then "boobies" should also be removed from Booby (disambiguation). Lack of incoming links is irrelevant - the redirect exists to point the user to the most likely article based on their search term. --Jameboy (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet✽ 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another lesson in biology. Also see:

• Poop Shoot
• Poop Shute
• Ringpiece

Not linked to at all. Consider other possible targets Do I have a fetish yet? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you stop there? What about ass-hole, pooper, butthole, craphole, poophole, doo doo hole, dookie hole, tail hole, brown starfish, baloon knot, balloon knot, and stinky wink? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to add them - that's why I posted the link. Especially stinky wink seemed legit for me non-native speaker (baby talk?). In case you'll add them, I'm for keeping ass-hole, pooper and butthole as they are in use. Ever heard of the Butthole Surfers?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the issue isn't whether the terms exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now that the snickering is over, perhaps, other than some bored kids seeing if WP turns up when they type in various synonyms or euphemisms for anus these serve no real purpose. There are whole books devoted to synomyms or euphemisms for nearly all body parts or sexual acts that will give us hundreds of redirects. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet✽ 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the trend started yesterday. See also:

• Devil's Dumplings
• Bewbz
• B00bz
• B00b
• Jubblies
• Bristols
• Lady lumps
• Hawaiian Muscles
• Gazomba
• Gazombas
• Fun bags
• Jigglies
• Chesticles

Thank you.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper humor meets WP:Vandalism. Speedy delete and flag the author. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. At least there were no duplicates of those that were deleted in the first set last week. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now that the snickering is over, perhaps, other than some bored kids seeing what WP turns up when they type in various synonyms or euphemisms for breast these serve no real purpose. There are whole books devoted to synomyms or euphemisms for nearly all body parts or sexual acts that will give us hundreds of redirects. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term or link target, unused. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an implausible typo. Is four months ago recent enough for WP:CSD#R3? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's not really useful, I suppose.--Teiladnam (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like someone was trying to be funny. It didn't work. Tavix (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill with fire - it's been a while since this recommendation seemed appropriate for a redirect. Does anybody expect "murder" to be spelled with nine R's? B.Wind (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only on pirrrrrrate day -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget Averell (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect the name of a specific software (bug tracking tool) to a generic list, and the only page that links to it is the target page itself. Averell (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix. I suggest changing the redirect to redirect to Seapine Software, the owner of TestTrack_Pro . Mathiastck (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Mathiastck - at least there's some mention of TestTrack Pro there. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete and recreate the redirect to Web portal once we have expanded the target accordingly..Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful cross-namespace redirect and unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All cross namespace redirects need killing. Delete Majorly talk 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Tavix (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful shortcut. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is actually a confusing cross namespace redirect as community portals are scattered throughout the Internet. Thus the best action would be to redirect to Web portal and make sure that "community portal" is mentioned somewhere in the target. Names in articlespace should point to articles that are not specific Wikipedia uses. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems quite useful to me. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an unnecessary Xnamespace redirect. A redirect to Web portal seems good to me too. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
• Retarget to Web portal. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect that currently creates confusion through an implicit and factually incorrect claim that "community portal" is a term that only applies to Wikipedia. --Allen3 ^talk 11:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible typo. Majorly talk 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about that - the difference between main page and main-page is exactly one hyphen. Keep. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main Page is what you're looking for. There's two characters difference. Majorly talk 22:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This could potentially help find the main page. On the other hand, what would be gained by deleting this? Nothing. There's no reason to delete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Second the above statement.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, very likely typographical error (the hyphen - capitalization should not be a reason for deletion unless the caps or lower case letters create confusion. There's no confusion created here.) and therefore a plausible search item. B.Wind (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Majorly (talk · contribs), what were you thinking? -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The result of the discussion was Not applicable. RFD is not doe debating whether articles should exist or not. That's AFD. Besides the precedural grounds, there seems to be no consensus for redirecting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article HAD been a redirect (since November) until an anonymous user reverted it back to its "article" status. The article seems to have enough information to be a stub, at best. So, the question is, should this go back to being a redirect or should it remain as a stub? Matt (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The second and third paragraphs of the article as it stands now weren't in the pre-redirection version, and they now make this an article with information on the field of arthropodology, where the article previously had only a dictionary definition, along with WP:COATRACK information about arthropods and about arthropodologists. I would still remove the last paragraph, but other than that the article now has substantive information about its topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say this is worth keeping, as it's a distinct topic from arthropod (which is linked in the first line, for anyone who wants to find it, anyway). Terraxos (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Mister Alcohol's comment shows the harm of this redirect. The target is not a redirect. If someone add (disambiguation) to a title, they are specifically looking for a disambiguation page. It is wrong to have that be a blue link when one doesn't exist. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Here is a case where there are other uses of the term in reliable sources (such as [2]) but there seem no Wikipedia articles covering them. It's a long title, but a significant number of readers/editors have used [[Foo (disambiguation)]] as a lookup when they know that "Foo" has multiple meanings. While there is clearly one major meaning/use of the term, nothing would be gained by the deletion of this redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. How likely will it be for articles covering different meanings of the term to be created? There is very little potential to be maintained by keeping, but zero to be gained by deleting. Either way, it's not really worth the trouble of this RfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be a long title, but a significant number of readers/editors have used [[Foo (disambiguation)]] as a lookup when they know that "Foo" has multiple meanings. While there is clearly one major meaning/use of the term, nothing would be gained by the deletion of this redirect -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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