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 --Taelus (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Visible penis line → Cameltoe (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. This was discussed ad nauseam at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line and the decision was delete, not redirect. Recreating the article as a redirect was inappropriate; it should have gone to WP:DRV. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly a breach of the AFD decision to redirect this instead of deletion (also Camel toe does not even mention this term). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The consensus at the AfD was clear that this term is not in encyclopaedic use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Articles get deleted all the time where redirects are made to some relevant place related to the subject. How is this a good reason for deletion of the redirect? It was established in the AfD that the term gets used on the internet, but was not independently notable. So having a redirect as a finding aid seems completely appropriate. (Note, I !voted for deletion of the article.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While it was noted that the term is used, it was not used in any reliable sources and it certainly is not used to refer to "cameltoe", and the topic is not mentioned in that article so the redirect target is neither relevant nor a useful finding aid. We don't have an article that does cover this topic, under any term that anyone has been able to think of looking for it under. Indeed that the topic is barely, if at all, discussed in reliable sources (as far as the AfD could tell) would generally preclude us having an article about it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It redirects to Cameltoe#Cameltoe_vs._bulge which does reference male organ bulges through clothing. Since redirects are cheap and we know the term exists in internet slang, I don't see how project benefits from deleting redirect.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the former contents of the deleted article, merged in spite of the decision to delete and not merge. If you look closer at the sources, you'll see general mention of men in tight pants that emphasize the crotch area. The leap from "crotch" or "bulge" to "visible penis line" is synthesis and original research. Which is part of why it was deleted to begin with. Again, the venue to dispute the AfD is WP:DRV, rather than trying to subvert the AfD decision. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Thryduulf. The idea of this topic may belong somewhere, but the title was deleted per discussion. Redirects are cheap, but we still don't need to have one for every term an editor has heard once somewhere without verifiability (similar to WP:NEO). The afd spoke to this exact issue. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per wp:REDIRECT for the reason listed there of a phrase's being [even if a straightforward description of a phenomenon, btw] fairly rare of a coinage. (Also, the target but nominally references this phenomenon of male-specific groin-profiling in any case.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI - The target, Camel toe, has now been listed for deletion (with the nominator's rationale referencing that a more-complete Wiktionary entry for this term was recently created).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 with no prejudice to creation of a disambiguation page. --Taelus (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Air travel disruption → Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete there are many air travel disruptions, this is just one of many. And the most significant air travel disruption is the one on/after 9/11/2001, not this one. Many articles have air travel disruption sections, frequently for storms. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too generic to be useful for anything other than a generic article about what causes disruption to air travel. I can't find that we have such an article, probably because one would struggle to be encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If/when we have some more general article about air travel disruption (which is certainly notable but would be a challenge to write), then this redirect could meaningfully point to it. Until then, it's just misleading. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if there are indeed several "air travel disruptions", then maybe a better course of action would be to turn the redirect into a dab page. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, with a section on the shutdown of US airspace after the 9/11 attacks, would count, I would think. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 with no prejudice to recreation when a valid target exists. --Taelus (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transport disruption → Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete there are many travel disruptions. Alot of articles have travel disruption sections, like storms, wars, 9/11, other natural disasters, border closures, etc. [1] ; Of the current links to this redirect, one links back to the article this targets from that article, and all three usages of this redirect refer to a different topic that the target of this redirect. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too generic to be useful for anything other than an article about the general topic of transport disruption. I can't find that we have such article, and writing one without a lot of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH could be difficult. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If/when we have some more general article about travel disruption, then this redirect could meaningfully point to it. Until then, it's just misleading. bobrayner (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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, G7'ed per author's request. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:NAZI → Wikipedia:My little brother did it (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nonsensical redirect based on now-reverted edit [2]. Bundling Wikipedia:ADOLFHITLER for the same reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both unless there is a better target, but I've not spotted one. The same target as WP:GODWIN was one thing I considered, but that redirects to the mainspace article Godwin's law, which wouldn't be a good target for either of these redirects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism is another possibility, but I suspect that if the participants there thought these would be good shortcuts they'd have created them by now. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both; needlessly inflammatory. We don't need to encourage godwination of future discussions when it's possible to describe the target in a much more neutral/less inflammatory way. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more that it is just plain wrong. I've never seen anyone use this tactic in all the hundreds of unblock requests I've reviewed, the actual text of the revision is pretty ridiculous, i.e. "there are billions of John Smiths and Obi-Wan Kenobis in the world," and in any event the common term is the Nuremburg defense. But of course your right that it is needlessly inflammatory on top of being dead wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a really good point, but I fear that deleting every misused rhetorical device would be a sisyphean task! bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both; if they're that rare it doesn't merit the redirect, inflammatory or not. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]