Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Malamanteau: +wiktionary diff link
→‎Malamanteau: +K as stub
Line 251: Line 251:


* '''Delete and salt''' - I didn't know if this term was real or fictional; I came to Wikipedia to find out. If the article didn't exist, I'd infer that it was fictional - which is exactly what I wanted to know. No one will come looking for this article having not seen the xkcd comic first. [[User:Dheppens|Dheppens]] ([[User talk:Dheppens|talk]]) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Delete and salt''' - I didn't know if this term was real or fictional; I came to Wikipedia to find out. If the article didn't exist, I'd infer that it was fictional - which is exactly what I wanted to know. No one will come looking for this article having not seen the xkcd comic first. [[User:Dheppens|Dheppens]] ([[User talk:Dheppens|talk]]) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' as a stub or a redirect. There are two reasons a person would look up this word in wikipedia: Either he saw it somewhere other than XKCD and wondered if it was a real word (or what its meaning was), or he saw it in XKCD and wanted to see if it was a real encyclopedic entry. The second guy is worthless -- we can forget about him; he's only here for the lulz, and is not seeking any real encyclopedic knowledge. The first guy is the point of view we should most consider. In his case, we can cause him to find either a stub or redirect, which will answer whatever questions he had on it (thus fulfilling the role of an encyclopedia) or we can leave him a "Start article here" prompt -- the wikipedian equivalent of a 404. In the latter event, he gains no knowledge, he isn't even sure if he spelled the word right ("Malamanteaux" is a ridiculous word to have to spell), and he leaves frustrated. Unless he is VERY familiar with the wikipedian guidelines of Notability, RS, etc, he can't possibly expect wikipedia never to have heard of the word and not to have an article on it -- most people will just be frustrated, annoyed, and leave. That's not our goal. It may not meet the strict guidelines, but if the ultimate goal is to be a useful source of knowledge, it's probably time to IAR and include a few sentences about the joke. [[User:Deltopia|Deltopia]] ([[User talk:Deltopia|talk]]) 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


====<span id="Orphan initialism">Orphan initialism</span>====
====<span id="Orphan initialism">Orphan initialism</span>====

Revision as of 03:59, 13 May 2010

May 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2010

1421: The Year China Discovered the World

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 nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete views. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely search term -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw Sorry, I hadn't realised this was a book title
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

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 nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete views. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat unlikely search term -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw Sorry, I hadn't realised this was a book title
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

55th parliament of the UK

There is no such thing as the 55th parliament of the UK. The parliament is NEVER referred to as such. The redirect is implausible and also POV - when would one number from? The creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, or Great Britain an Ireland in 1801, or Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927. No one would ever count like this, and thus no reader would ever search like this. Scott Mac 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, not only does the UK not number "Parliaments" it does not refer to sittings of Parliament as separate things. We don't pluralise parliament.--Scott Mac 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, let's throw in the redirect for the 54th Parliament as well. Both of these redirects were only referenced once or twice; I think I've clarified the references to them where they appeared. --Tim Parenti (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep all. The arguments about search above are a red herring. The purpose of the redirect (as far as I understand) is to provide alternative titles to the same articles to prevent information on essentially the same topic fragmenting in multiple places. So saying that someone will never search for the term is a case for deleting the redirect is flawed logic in my opinion. The only basis for deleting a redirect is if it is not an alternative title for the article. Clearly there is such a term as 54th parliament of the UK as the following sample of diverse sources shows:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599967.stm
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=137562
http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Nottinghamshire_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/
So if the "54th parliament" is a valid term, then 55th must be also a valid term. So just because it's not in common usage, or just because some editors have never heard of it is not sufficient argument in my opinion to delete the redirect (and I include myself in those editors who have never heard the term before...) ChrisUK (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm going to agree with the above sentiment. I didn't even think about going to Google, and while "55th Parliament" may not be an officially- or even oft-used term, it certainly has its valid uses as evidenced above. --Tim Parenti (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - Per the reasons and sources above. It's not used officially, and it is not used that often. But it is used, and that's one of the things that makes it helpful. Eg. someone reads it somewhere, thinks "what one was the 54th/55th parliament?" and looks it up on WP. And they get an answer, Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical interface

This seems like a poor target; an electrical connector is a type of physical interface, but far from the only type, and readers looking for something else are likely to be confused. I suppose a redirect to the disambig page Interface is possible, but I hope some one else can suggest a better solution. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malamanteau

The target article holds no relevant information on the term currently, thus this redirect only serves to confuse. XKCD readers already know this originated there, thus with no relevant information on the target article, the redirect is purposeless. Non-XKCD readers who somehow find the term and search it won't find any information on it at all, and will only become more confused. (aka: "Why does a word redirect to this page? This makes no sense.") Taelus (Talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. It's a joke.--digital_me (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Taelus. Right now, the only people looking for the word are people who saw the XKCD strip, and they don't need the redirect anyway. If--if--the word catches on as a running XKCD joke and gets a hold in pop culture, I could see there being a redirect. I highly doubt that will happen. In the meantime, Delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narsil (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I don't see any point in keeping a reference to a joke, unless it becomes popular culture, and then it should be made an article. In any case, a redirect is pointless and confusing since the only ones who will get that it was a term coined in an xkcd strip will be the people who have read the strip, and they (us) don't need the redirect in the first place; a simple not found is enough to see that it was invented. 01:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep; it just has so much internet culture importance, it would be a la china/tibet to destroy it, don't let communism win, malamanteau must enter the OED as well Rab777hp (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. xkcd is already poisoning Wikipedia by its addition to unrelated articles by idiotic fanboys. Do NOT let them get away with this, they'll start thinking Wikipedia is their own. Be harsh on this horse shit; there are too many xkcd fans involved in Wikipedia who will make excuses for stuff like this. 90.219.166.214 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to Assume good faith and avoid phrasings like "poisoning" and "idiotic fanboys".Rdore (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also - the entire point of Wikipedia is that its the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - thus, Wikipedia IS their own. Just as much as it is ours.
  • Keep; The simple fact that this topic has caused enough of a reaction to warrant this kind of discussion clearly gives the word enough merit to keep an explanation of it on this site. While people are afraid that allowing internet memes to gain recognition on this forum will damage the integrity of the institution, these people must recognize that this forum has many examples of explanations of jokes, hoxes and the like. It should be noted, also, that wikipedia is not a 'serious' method of acquiring information. This example of an xkcd-created word is something that I would very much expect to find on Wikipedia, which is why I came to Wikipedia to search for it in the first place.
Oh noes, we are doomed because people with a sense of humor create trivial articles that impact nothing important in any way at all!!!--Kaz (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right. If it's trivial and impacts nothing important, it should not be in an encyclopaedia. 86.131.90.78 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have to agree with this. I love xkcd and all, but creating pages about invented words purely because xkcd had a Wikipedia-related comic is not a good enough reason to make an article. IF "malamanteau" passes into common language, I'd suggest an addition to Wiktionary, but it's certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a criterion? Let me go delete all the LotR character bios! Tweeq (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a vengence. Agreed, it adds nothing. Deathanatos (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I don't share 90.219.166.214's ...enthusiasm, the redirect serves no useful purpose. MoraSique (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia's editors are high on their own farts. Comics like the one that led to this redirect make that point, and the ensuing discussion drives it home expertly. Of course it will be deleted - why would the project suddenly have a sense of humor about itself, or allow contributions that encourage everyone's involvement, rather than that of an elite few who "take the project seriously enough" to be endowed with its protection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.11.134 (talk) This template must be substituted.
...I think you're missing the point of Wikipedia, friend. Wikipedia is supposed to be serious and about notable topics--that's the whole point of an encyclopedia. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The cat may be out of the bag; there is currently a blurb about in at examiner.com but that can't be linked here because of a spam filter, so I assume it is not a WP:RS. Certainly not article-worthy, but if it gains a little more traction, it may warrant mention or a sub-section in xkcd, and thus earn a redirect. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While it is obviously a joke, it's not an article, it's simply a redirect, so I can actually see there being a legitimate reason for it existing in the very near future. Having said that, it is obviously a joke right now, so delete. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. Caught it on newpage patrol. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. HereToHelp (talk to me) 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I'm an avid XKCD reader and this shouldn't be an article redirect. At best it's a blurb in XKCD article. Also, despite the commentary on how Wikipedia works, there isn't really any purpose in diluting it's value with meaningless redirects. Kaizoman (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the article and even I don't think it should exist. I just thought it would be funny. It was... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasSixten (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and salt per Narsil above. At the moment, the only people who would look for this all know about the comic, and there's no chance of having an article about the word, so there's no point in having anything. This can be revisited if it turns into a Little Bobby Tables kind of thing that is actually broadly known. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep In the last few hours two people have asked me if the term was a real one that existed prior to this xkcd. Having it redirect to xkcd gives a quick answer to that. It also makes it a plausible search term since someone might see the xkcd article and then type this in to see the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Switching to neutral. Need to think about this more. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no dispute that the term may be searched. The problem with it is that it will not yield anything of relevance in the target page, and additionally may prove confusing for non-XKCD readers. Being something which may be typed into the search box does not make a good redirect. A good redirect points you to where information is. Redirects are navigational aids, not substitutes for a stub which would read: "This is the name of an xkcd comic." --Taelus (Talk) 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • People who haven't seen the xkcd comic aren't the people who are going to type this in. The implicit answer with such a redirect is that the word was made up by Munroe. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But what benefit does it give to xkcd readers? If they already know, why do they need a redirect? Additionally, whilst it seems unlikely, it is certainly possible that others who do not know the context will stumble across this term, and thus we will end up confusing them further. There is no reason to assume that the uninformed party will go "Oh, it's obvious that because this redirect exists as it does, the writer of this webcomic invented the term." --Taelus (Talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly delete. Until it becomes part of popular culture, which, despite xkcd's large fanbase, it doesn't seem to have yet, this redirect is unnecessary. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 16:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page is informative even for non-Xkcd readers. The statements that it would confuse people is false as the page would define what a malamanteau is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.182.72 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
  • Delete - a bit in the comic's article is appropriate; a redirect seems overly enthusiastic for a neologism like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Extreme Prejudice - I think Wikipedia is cluttered enough without the added burden of sophmoric pranks. BoKu (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect serves no purpose, but kudos to xkcd for creating this brouhaha. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I saw the comic and honestly just wanted to see what the word meant. I had to go somewhere else to find out. So that would seem to mean that "some" sort of page was needed... --69.167.200.53 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is how I arrived here, too. I wanted to find out if it was a real word or article, and quickly learned it was not due to the (now disabled) redirect. I can see that being of value, on the very short-term. Depending on the timeline of this discussion, its worth may well expire rendering the discussion academic. Diaphane (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only found out due to the contextual usage on this discussion page. For the next few days a quick blurb and link to the XKCD article would be most useful.
  • Change: We still voting? I left this edit open for a while. Anyway, redirect this to Portmanteau, either here or on wiktionary. It's no BFD at all, and the hysteria about it just shows who has the stick farthest up their asses. People read the disingenuous wikilawyering over actually controversial articles, by people with specific censorship agendas, and confuse that faux urgency for the real thing. This infects them with an OCD obsession over enforcing the guidelines-cum-absolutes. --Kaz (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close as it will be impossible to obtain consensus in an RFD while we have so much incoming traffic. Previously Talk:Malamanteau was taking the brunt of the incoming traffic but the RFD notice on the Malamanteau page itself [1] has resulted in that traffic being redirected here instead. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck procedural close and changed to keep (see below). --Tothwolf (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a vote. Vote-stacking due to high traffic shouldn't affect the outcome. If first time editors want to contribute to discussing consensus here, then let them. If they want to simply say "Keep" or "Delete", then let them. The closing admin can weigh up the arguments. Wikipedia Consensus isn't formed by a group of select editors, thus why should we exclude the inbound traffic here from our discussions? --Taelus (Talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: Why not just put a brief explanation of the word (steal the xkcd one, even) and its origin (as an xkcd comic) with a link to the page on xkcd? As an avid xkcd reader, I think the redirect is slightly funny but definitely shouldn't stay up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.245.113 (talk • contribs) 17:01, May 12, 2010
As a reason to just delete and not leave as a redirect and expand the xkcd article, how about WP:UNDUE? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The serious part: Delete per WP:NEO. The less serious part: I thought that Wikipedia grew up; was i wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And where did this Malamanteaux thing come from? Delete it too. This whole thing will die out by the time a new xkcd comic is up, and the term is not notable enough to associate with xkcd. ALI nom nom 17:19, 12 May 2010

(UTC)

  • Keep There is no good reason to delete this article. If it is a phenomenon that needs to be explained, it should be on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it was created through pop-culture or not. When one reads the malamanteaux article it makes a clear explanation of what the word is. Since it has clearly been used before (such as the George Bush example cited), it should remain. I believe, as User 209.189.245.113 suggests, with a link to the xkcd article. (It should not be redirected to XKCD unless there will be an explanation in the XKCD article of the word itself). 71.228.128.186 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep, with more specific redirect* There is already a heading for "Themes" on the xkcd page that mentions the fact that there are often Wikipedia references. Expand that section to note this particular instance, and have this page redirect right to that section.
Keep, with more specific redirect as explained above. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change: This should be an article, not a redirect. The word existed a long time before xkcd mentioned it. hotaru2k3 17:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
...no, actually it isn't a real word. Randall Munroe made it up for the comic. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to xkcd, if for no other reason than to shut up the inevitable outcry. I'm an avid xkcd fan with a good sense of humor and a former inclusionist Wikipedian, but even then I can't argue that this thing is notable. A redirect (possibly with a line in the xkcd article, if "malamanteau" does not blow over by tomorrow) is more than it deserves. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the big fuss? Does it really matter? Seriously? The only people that go to Wikipedia expecting accurate information deserve to be misinformed. I don't know why people get so worked up about xkcd or The Colbert Report or the like ruining the integrity of Wikipedia when, clearly, the integrity of Wikipedia was tarnished a long time ago. It's times like these that only remind people Wikipedia has no integrity. So, just laugh it off and go back to life. Go to Wikipedia for the big picture and not for accuracy. 75.139.58.84 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicism about the past is not an excuse to try to do better in the future. Your argument is invalid. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone says you're cynical, they are admitting you're right. Cynicism is making aware to an unpleasant truth. That being said, the only way to give Wikipedia its integrity back is to stop playing silly games and letting the people decide what's in it. Remove the edit and create article buttons and hire actual experts. Anything short of that is going to result in an inaccurate Wikipedia, so to argue about what is and isn't accurate or what to and not to post is a waste of everybody's time. Fine. Do what you're going to do. Just let it be known that every one of you is being petty.75.139.58.84 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Not sure what definition of "cynicism" you were using, but I meant it to mean "a skeptical, scornful or pessimistic attitude" (via Wiktionary). So really, what I meant was that you're being far too pessimistic about Wikipedia. Wikipedia can do better, and one way to do that (IMHO) is to follow its own policies about what is or is not notable, which I think are quite reasonable policies. Ignoring those policies for something as transitory and unimportant as a joke about a made-up word seems foolish to me. If Wikipedia is ever to improve (and I believe it can), then it has to maintain a certain level of quality, a level that does not include silly made-up words. 24.247.163.175 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Provide another wiki as evidence. Cynicism is the opposite of naiveté. Naiveté being believing what feels good because you don't know any better, and cynicism being the complete opposite. Whatever. You sound like a complete mindless robot when you say that the reason to improve anything is to, "follow policies." The answer to everything is to violate policies, fight others' complacency. Whatever. I'm getting off topic, but my point is, if people call you cynical, they know you're right, because if they didn't, they would just choose another word. Wikipedia will never be a place of accuracy as long as anyone can edit it, and it's futile to try. Nobody who matters cares whether that word has its own article. Now, I'm closing the browser because I have more important things to do that argue on Wikipedia. Like rearranging my sock drawer.75.139.58.84 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dictionary.com: "cynical: like or characteristic of a cynic; distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, esp. by actions that exploit the scruples of others; bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic." thefreedictionary.com: "cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." Webster's Dictionary: "cynical: contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives; based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest." Cambridge Dictionary: "believing that people are only interested in themselves and are not sincere; describes the use of someone's feelings or emotions to your own advantage." babylon.com: "pessimism, misanthropy, suspiciousness, sarcasm, contempt". Sheesh. (oh, and it's not the antonym of "naivety", either... http://thesaurus.com/browse/cynicism) 24.247.163.175 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. I'm an xkcd fan, but it would be most appropriate if people checking up on the strip found a notice that there was no such page here. (Should the word catch on in a notable way, that would be another story, of course.) Shmuel (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; clearly not notable, and a redirect wouldn't be appropriate in that case anyway. However, it would be nice if the WP community could try to keep a sense of humor. I have a suspicion that XKCD fans contribute to the project far more than they harm it. Scj2315 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't create an article on malamanteaux, we can at best create an article on the Wikipedia article "malamanteau", and we're in the business of writing Wikipedia articles about other things, not Wikipedia articles about themselves, or worse, about their lack of existence. (And, in general, an individual comic is not notable on the xkcd article. Today we're suffering from WP:recentism; Friday we'll forget this ever happened.) --Geoffrey 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are all sorts of great and convenient reasons to justify an article or redirect but none of them pass muster when compared to Wikipedia's mission of being an Encyclopedia covering notable topics (or at least informational). It may be that some day but a mere utterance by a single source certainly doesn't mean it should have a Wikipedia article. If someone wishes to cover this "story" then there are far more worthy web venues for that. Principles that are bypassed in the name of convenience cease to have any meaning at all. Love XCKD, Love Wikipedia, especially when they both focus on doing what they are supposed to be doing. CáliKewlKid (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait one week and delete: I'm a fan of xkcd, have a mildly- to moderately-warped sense of humor, and yeah, I found it amusing, but useless and non-notable. However, it's not going to destroy the world if it's not corrected immediately. Wait a week for the furor to die down, delete the redirect with a "This page was deleted" notice, and don't pet the sweaty things. 66.20.48.108 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects harm no one. Besides, I honestly had no idea if this was a real term or not, a re-direct to xkcd clears that up, it seems useful to me. Random89 20:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with specific redirect: It's a cute joke and does no harm to the integrity of Wikipedia, so long as it is made very obvious that term was invented by and is directly related to xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.162.43 (talk • contribs) 20:43, May 12, 2010
  • Keep, with specific redirect to the inspired activities section of xkcd. The hullaballoo this has created warrants inclusion on the inspired activities, and it's also been a very popular google search today. 98.255.0.231 (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We need to judge this by our standard guidelines - not make it a special case just because it came from xkcd. I'm a huge fan of xkcd - but rules are rules and this link shouldn't exist. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the standard for deciding whether a subject should have a redirect, only for deciding whether something should have an article. Hut 8.5 22:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Change"" Just make a new page dedicated to the comic and how it turned Wikipedia inside out over a matter of hours trying to decide what to do about the problem
  • Keep and redirect to Xkcd, it seems like the best solution - full protect as a redirect if needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects are cheap, they shouldn't be deleted unless there is some reason to do so. This is going to be a common search term thanks to the popularity of xkcd, and the xkcd article is the only one that is appropriate for this search. The redirect doesn't meet anything in the "Reasons for deleting" section above, and there isn't any policy or guideline recommending deletion. Hut 8.5 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect on xkcd. it does not hurt the wikipedia to have this redirect since it is unlikely we will need the "place" for an real article" and we do not need to protect or patrol this article. i think a redirect is a win-win situation. Elvis (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected redirect to a video of Rick Astley xkcd. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the stir that this has caused in the internet community, i would say that it has as much a valid place in wikipedia as any other event. The content of the page may not neccessarily reflect the definition of 'malamanteau' but the related events..
  • Delete Direct to wiktionary
  • Keep From WP:NN, "Notability guidelines do no directly limit article content." Given that, I think it's quite reasonable to list this at Xkcd#Inspired_activities. And a redirect to said information seems entirely reasonable. But I'll still predict that people will keep nominating this for deletion till they get the result they want. Rdore (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot possibly imagine that you actually read what this is about if you are suggesting a move to a dictionary. It isn't an actual word, it is sort of neologistic meme that has existed for all of 24 hours. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've already placed it in it's appropriate place on wiktionary. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is really no reason to delete it, i mean look at some of the stuff the random artical button comes up with, i bet you that this has had more activity in the last day then somthing such as Effective marginal tax rate has had in its entire exsistance... and that was made in 2008

oh and i swear there was a link to this word on the dissuion earlyer that said its been around since 2007

  • Keep and retarget to xkcd#Malamanteau as {{R to section}} as a likely search term per the redirect guideline. With 72,400 hits [2] on May 12th alone, "Malamanteau" itself is a likely search term and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
    The delete arguments given above do not appear to take into account this now being a likely search term, nor do they seem to coincide with the reasons for deleting redirects outlined in the redirect guideline. While the term "Malamanteau" would at present certainly not meet the notability guideline for the purposes of a standalone article, the notability guideline does not cover redirects, and as outlined in WP:NNC, the notability guideline also does not prevent us from covering this topic in the parent xkcd article. Notability and neologism arguments might be on target if this were a standalone article listed at AfD, but this is a redirect listed at RFD and neither of those apply here.
    I still would have preferred to have seen an early procedural close for this RFD as I noted above [3] and on the nominator's talk page [4] given the massive amount of incoming traffic which is now being redirected here due to the transcluded RFD notice [5] on the Malamanteau page. Initiating an XfD during such times of high incoming traffic almost always results in difficulties in reaching a consensus and often leads to multiple XfD and DRV listings.
    (Whew, that turned out rather lenghty...) --Tothwolf (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I comment that it's getting tiresome that someone has to add an XKCD reference for almost every single strip. Next thing you know, we'll be adding it to the wood article. Falls under "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", as well as "The redirect might cause confusion". Mdwh (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What, are we making Wikipedia sick? Will this entry make it woozy? Does it need to visit the Editorial Doctor? The point's been made several times that this redirect won't confuse people outside xkcd (because they won't be looking for it, because it's made up). So why does a large circle of people think that trying to delete is a service to the public? Watch, my good encyclopaedia writers, and see how much they care.98.247.234.192 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, to paraphrase Randall: "No, it shouldn't be an article." Nor even a redirect. To clarify; I'll address the argument that keeping it is worthwhile because people will search for it. The only people searching for it have already seen the entirety of the source material, and I cannot fathom what more information they could seek. To the argument that a redirect to xkcd will clarify anything, again they already know where they came from. There is another source, which has nothing to do with the comic and was not notable for 3 years and still isn't. Come back when this word has entered the lexicon, not simply scribbled in a webcomic, and only then should a redirect even be considered.
  • Delete and salt - I didn't know if this term was real or fictional; I came to Wikipedia to find out. If the article didn't exist, I'd infer that it was fictional - which is exactly what I wanted to know. No one will come looking for this article having not seen the xkcd comic first. Dheppens (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub or a redirect. There are two reasons a person would look up this word in wikipedia: Either he saw it somewhere other than XKCD and wondered if it was a real word (or what its meaning was), or he saw it in XKCD and wanted to see if it was a real encyclopedic entry. The second guy is worthless -- we can forget about him; he's only here for the lulz, and is not seeking any real encyclopedic knowledge. The first guy is the point of view we should most consider. In his case, we can cause him to find either a stub or redirect, which will answer whatever questions he had on it (thus fulfilling the role of an encyclopedia) or we can leave him a "Start article here" prompt -- the wikipedian equivalent of a 404. In the latter event, he gains no knowledge, he isn't even sure if he spelled the word right ("Malamanteaux" is a ridiculous word to have to spell), and he leaves frustrated. Unless he is VERY familiar with the wikipedian guidelines of Notability, RS, etc, he can't possibly expect wikipedia never to have heard of the word and not to have an article on it -- most people will just be frustrated, annoyed, and leave. That's not our goal. It may not meet the strict guidelines, but if the ultimate goal is to be a useful source of knowledge, it's probably time to IAR and include a few sentences about the joke. Deltopia (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan initialism

Delete, no longer mentioned in target. Polarpanda (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical model

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 Move performed, since it strikes me as uncontroversial. A hatnote can be put in place if any other usages spring up. --Taelus (Talk) 15:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make room for renaming Model (physical) to Physical model. Greg Bard 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_12&oldid=361819638"