Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 145.116.231.232 (talk) at 09:16, 14 May 2010 (→‎Malamanteau). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete views.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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete views.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]

  • Retarget to Interface. I have added a definition of 'physical interface'. This term is used in many pages each with rather differing meanings and there seems no reason to target it on one rather than another. Optimally, we could do with an article on the subject but that will take a lot of work. This retarget seems the best option, for the time being. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malamanteau

  • Keep

1. XKCD has a huge amount of readers world wide 2. Many other neologisms have been created in a similar way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau#Origin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malapropism#Etymology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism#Kniferism_and_forkerism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromulent#Embiggen_and_cromulent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

145.116.231.232 (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete 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]
I agree the redirect is confusing. 12.8.194.30 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — 12.8.194.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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)
  • Keep; I support below argument. The BBC has picked it up, slashdot. It is a real word now. Historically, someone had to write a new word into a book, publish the book, get some following before a word would be accepted into "dictionary" like products, which work on a yearly release cycle anyway. In these electronic times it could take a few days before a made-up word has become a real word. So I say: Keep the article, point back to xkcd. Rewolff (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Like it or not, the cat is out of the bag. The word may stick, especially if generate waves of discussion, either by its meaning or the handling e.g. by Wikipedia. You may add a sentence like: Constructed word by comic website XKCD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.29.179 (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; It is from one of the most popular comics and there is already a bunch of news site articles on it such as BBC and Slashdot. We've seen this before with Stephen Colbert's truthiness. By attempting to delete it you made it notable. BTW, Google search reveals nearly 50,000 web pages related to this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.194.30 (talk • contribs) — 12.8.194.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agree; While the word is not necessarily in of itself notable, the result on the community is notable and it should be kept and expanded to include that.216.27.53.158 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.209.171 (talk • contribs) — 190.245.209.171 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.178.183 (talk • contribs)
By that rationale we should let all the db-bio, db-spam and the like stay too. Your argument is spurious. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, wikipedia has community standards, defined by its community. Readers of xkcd have the opportunity to participate within this process just like anything else. The point of this discussion should be whether or not this article meets those standards, not who has the right to edit wikipedia. LeinadSpoon (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.241.10 (talk • contribs)
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]
Serious, certainly. But there's a point beyond which "taking the project seriously" becomes "taking yourself too seriously". Has the project become so puffed up on its own importance that it cannot stand to poke a little fun at itself from time to time? That's not gravitas, thats pomposity, and Wikipedia is ill-served by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.170.176 (talk • contribs)
  • 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]
Well, it's been proven notable now, so I change my vote to Keep, because at this point, it's gotten to the point where more than just the readers of xkcd are going to look for it. Laytonsmith14 (talk) 03:56, 14 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) Ok. Now back to keep since there are now reliable sources talking about the word and xkcd. See for example [1][2]. So obviously the solution at this point is to include a sourced mention in the main xkcd article and have this redirect to xkcd. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:35, 13 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.229.153 (talk • contribs)
  • 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 [3] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.132 (talk • contribs)
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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.155.176 (talk • contribs)
  • 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.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.107.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Direct to wiktionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.10.192.3 (talk • contribs)
  • 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]
  • Delete. Direct to wiktionary. Locoluis (talk) 23:37, 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuapettit (talk • contribs)

oh and i swear there was a link to this word on the dissuion earlyer that said its been around since 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuapettit (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. This is more XKCD spam... Shame on you Randall. Or shall I spin up a random word generator and we'll be up to 20 million pages in no time? --96.255.143.207 (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt ha ha, but this is not a real thing, and Wikipedia does not exist to support meta-pranks. Obvious violation of Wikipedia:Notability --Doom777 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Loving the drama and pointless bickering between Wikigods and xkcd fanboys. Keep up the show guys, I'll be right back with some popcorn. 75.33.124.190 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Funny jokes aren't notable just because they're funny. Good April Fools articles also get taken down. A redirect is unwarranted. RJC TalkContribs 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no worse than truthiness. - Clark Brooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as a redirect. Even if it turns out to be useless, how exactly would it be harmful? --a3_nm (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're fine with me and anyone else making up nonsense redirects to any old pages I like - "Even if it turns out to be useless, how exactly would it be harmful", right? Mdwh (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a joke, right? There is a specific reason to have this redirect, whether or not you think the reason is strong enough. Your suggestion equating it to making random redirects for no reason is nonsense. Strunkenwhite (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to xkcd#Malamanteau as {{R to section}} as a likely search term per the redirect guideline. With 72,400 hits [4] 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 [5] and on the nominator's talk page [6] given the massive amount of incoming traffic which is now being redirected here due to the transcluded RFD notice [7] 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 This template must be substituted.(UTC)
  • 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.184.37 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not noteworthy.Hominidx (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theads exactly like this one show how great wikipedia is, and noone will find it if we don't delete the redirect. - 66.92.73.52 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Delete and salt - Like I'd originally done. - No value whatsoever. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it funny that a single mention in one webcomic, xkcd, caused all this uproar. Ever wonder whether Randall Munroe is watching this whole discussion with a beer and laughing hilariously? Clifsportland (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now -- On Friday the driveby XKCD vandals will move on to another article. In a year or so, if anyone actually remembers this word (which nobody will), we can have a rational discussion about it then. 99.175.67.15 (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Rather unlikely search term, too, and if you do enter it on Google, you should be directed to xkcd, not Wikipedia. Great trolling, though. —Кузьма討論 06:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with specific redirect on the grounds that the comic is a critique of Wikipedia users' attitudes, and the length, pedantry, and vitriol of this very discussion prove its notability. --llamapalooza87 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with special message to xkcd fans who keep adding this kind of shit every time xkcd makes a Wikipedia reference: please stop. —Ashley Y 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the word is now probably looked up more than the average WP article. Make it an article containing the definition, examples, and a paragraph referring to xkcd and how this comic created a hype on this word. The last aspect justifies why it is more than just a wiktionary entry. The plural word Malamanteaux should redirect to Malamanteau, not xkcd --Wilfried Elmenreich (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with specific redirect: Follow the precedent set by "cromulent," which redirects to a subsection of the article for the Simpsons episode. Create a brief subsection in the XKCD article, and redirect to it. 140.247.157.137 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Keep it; It's on many internet websites by now. Probably will become a phrase. Wikipedia can be the first encyclopedia to have this word! (Also, this word "is used to insult Wikipedia users" so I'm not sure why I'm supporting... probably cause I like XKCD.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntoo (talk • contribs)

Also, change the redirect to the original article (as described on XKCD and urbandictionary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntoo (talk • contribs)

  • Delete – nothing new to add. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original it was petty and reflects badly on wikipedia to delete an article that has just been linked from a high traffic site. While not a great article it does harm top Wiki's reputation to delete it essentially Because it was linked, a semi-protect to avoid IP vandals and then deleting it a week later (preferably by Afd) would have saved a whole lot of the bureaucratic arguments that the cartoon was in part lampooning. --Natet/c 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as protected redirect, reasonable search term and applies the principle of least astonishment. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt both redirects. Okay, even many posters on the xkcd forums have suggested this was a particularly poor post by the comic's author. Pointless to redirect to xkcd, because anyone looking for the article will necessarily already know something about xkcd (seeing as it is the entire source of the current traffic). Heck, before it was posted on xkcd, not a single person is recorded as having even tried to access an article by that name this year. It doesn't even belong in the xkcd article's "Inspire activities" section, since it has no real impact. Personally, I was disappointed by the comic as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. I fail to see the harm and this is probably more trouble than it is worth. --Nick Catalano  contrib talk 10:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have taken the liberty to add a line to the Inspired activities section of the xkcd article. I feel like this is a decent compromise for all parties. You cannot deny the outcry and the stir that it has caused. That itself is worth mention, however it should be mentioned in the xkcd article and does not warrant its own. That in mind, Malamanteau should probably now be turned into a redirect to that section, and kept protected for a few weeks while everything dies down.
    I am aware that the line I added isn't exactly great, but I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so you will have to forgive me. Please someone beef it up a bit and edit it for style.
    Also - the talk page for Malamanteau really should be preserved to help cite/note the history of this whole shenanigans.
    I feel that it should also be noted that WP:NN makes no mention of notability for redirects, or what warrants them or not. So everyone having an issue with the notability of a redirect should reread that. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted - even now almost all the activity has died down. A week from now, folks will be all "What was that? Oh yeah, that was funny. Why did we have such a big fuss. Today's XKCD incident is so much funnier." - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, is bbcnewsamerica.com related to the actual BBC at all? Tarc (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be BBC World News America. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt both. It's a pure neologism, roughly 36 hours old as I write this. It's something Randall just made up. There are no reliable sources documenting significant natural usage, so it cannot be verified. (A bunch of blog postings pointing at the article talk page and laughing are neither (1) reliable nor (2) natural usage.) The only reason it is getting any attention at all is the horde of fans who insist on putting everything xkcd mentions on Wikipedia. When the next comic is released this Friday, they'll move on and this will all be quickly forgotten. Even if none of the above was true, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We don't create redirects for every word in the English language for that very reason. (I shudder to think about what kind of drama-storm this must be creating over on en-dict, but that's not our problem here.) Oh, and I forgot to mention: Deny recognition to vandals. Keeping this, even as a redirect, sets a bad precedent. We should not have redirects for every random prank some website pulls. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I change my mind, delete. I just cleaned up the section on references to wikipedia from xkcd in Wikipedia in culture, as it was a total mess. I chose to leave the details of the first mention of wikipedia in the webcomic, and state that several other references have been made. I moved the rest of the information to Talk:Wikipedia in culture. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here looking for confirmation that malamanteau was, or was not, a word. In general, I trust wikipedia to tell me these things. Yesterday, "malamanteau definition" trended on google, which suggests that a LOT of people wanted to know what I wanted to know. The discussion on this page is based on the premise that people show up to wikipedia from xkcd *knowing* that the comic was a joke - but this just isn't true. The redirect serves a useful purpose in that it confirms that the word was created by Randall Munroe for xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.169.248 (talk • contribs)
Restore - having no article would allow you to infer the same thing, restoring the article would confirm it. 208.3.91.194 (talk)

Keep, but change to xkcd#Malamanteau-controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.86.101 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, Regardless of the source of the word, or that fact that it is a neologism (as all words must be at some point), Malamanteau still holds intellectual merit. My first reaction upon reading the word was to look it up on Google/Wikipedia, as I'm sure many people have. Now this led me to learning about both Malapropism and Portmanteau which both have interesting and respectable articles on Wikipedia. Without XKCDs "creation" of Malamanteau, or the discourse on its validity, my knowledge of these two fascinating words (that I'm sure were neologisms at one point themselves--ahh yes, that's right, Wikipedia recounts their creation--) would not exist. I think that Wikipedia should uphold these important connections. Doubledaffy (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Delete and salt. As much as I like xkcd, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for XKCD jokes. It's tiresome to have to deal with these (i.e., Wood) every time they pop up. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The sudden rush of attempted views proves some sort of popularity. While the word may not deserve its own page, the history of its creation, controversy, and decisions made from it should be documented on at least the XKCD page. Inuvash255 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Weak keep, but protect. Something doesn't need to be notable to be a redirect, it just needs to be a possible search term for something else that is notable. Right now this is a possible search term, so it makes sense as a redirect even though it should never be an article itself. The real question is, will people still be looking for this a week from now? I don't know, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can reconsider this redirect in the future. As for the appropriateness of Wikipedia being a vehicle for xkcd jokes...that is true, but if the redirect is a possible search term there's nothing wrong with that. For instance, Fruity Oaty Bars redirects to Serenity, because it's a joke from that movie and is something people might search for. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need to have this argument every time a pop culture icon does something funny? If people use the word after a month of other funny xkcd comics, then it deserves an article. A redirect I think only causes confusion at this point. A non-existent page informs people the word does not exist in a clearer way than a redirect. Oakwright (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Wikipedia is not a joke site and this term is non-notable outside the comic. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a redirect to the xkcd inspired activities section The xkcd inspired activities section should have a short paragraph explaining that when the comic was published there was no such Wikipedia page, that a series of attempts to create one were inspired by said strip and speedily deleted, and that the consensus was to protect and put in a redirect to the xkcd inspired activities section. I note that this is essentially what a lot of the comments above say. Would any of you who voted delete be happy with this as a compromise? Guy Macon 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on, have you ever seen so much enthusiasm for less then 100 bytes of information, and all that in less than a day. If that isn't relevant I don't know what is. This template must be substituted.
  • Delete - not noteworthy in any way. It's a one day old joke. It would be the same as adding every sniglet in every sniglet book to the wikipedia with a redirect to the referring book. If the term becomes regularly used, then it can be added. Or, failing a delete now, we can bring it up for a vote for deletion in a month or two, by which time everybody coming from xkcd will have forgotten about it and it will be an easy vote. Kjl (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but redirect to a page regarding spoofs or criticisms of Wikipedia itself (or a section of the page on Wikipedia), as surely this is what the xkcd author intended by this comic, judging by the content of the comic panel. I'm guessing there are other pages out there of a similar vein. 71.179.31.174 (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, did not login first. ID is Ghaller (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the information is not contained in the xkcd article, because it is not notable as it has not been covered by third party sources other than user-created sites such as blogs (the only "references" I've seen so far are blogs, Urban Dictionary, wiktionary, and Wikipedia itself). If there is third party coverage in the future then the redirect could be created, but even then it would serve essentially no purpose since nobody would be typing it without knowledge of where it was going to redirect to. —Soap— 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meta-joke with no encyclopaedic value. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a made up word for a passing joke. Unless it goes into widespread usage it should not be included. Johnm4 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a month, then review. What harm does it do to have a silly article up for a while? Taking it down just makes it look like WP takes itself far too seriously Rage (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or delete and salt. The thing about the XKCD strip is (and given the nature of Wikipedia itself) that it seems entirely plausible that such a word may exist. So we either join in on the joke by keeping the redirect, or we delete/salt it so that it doesn't get continually get created, as will most certainly happen due to XKCD's quite devoted readership. howcheng {chat} 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's still information though. How can one truly judge what is and is not worthy to post to Wikipedia? Someone in the dark about XKCD may actually want to know what the word is in reference to. Even if this opens the door to every little joke, sniglet or fad, it's still a very short entry. Whether or not one thinks it is worthy of being posted, it exists now and deserves a definition. I say cite the word as a joke until it builds a further history (if it ever does) and reference back to XKCD. Tito151 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Taelus's resoning. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the Wikipedia article may end up becoming a part of the history of this word along the way. The redirect is harmless here, and at some point words do get coined and enter the mainstream of a language's vocabulary. While it may have been a passing joke initially, sometimes the jokes backfire and become a bona fide word. Certainly there are now enough external references to justify a redirect. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's very simple. You should not have a redirect to an article which does not talk about the topic. 86.134.165.218 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The redirect makes sense as long as the XKCD article is updated to mention it. Alternatly, the creation of a Malamanteau Joke page that could redirect to XKCD might be clearer. XKCD has sufficient following that I could reasonably see the word being used in reference to this incident and having someone legitimatly try to find information about it. This really has more merit as an event than as the original word. Ajh16 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Defer - This should be policy for meta-wikipedia mainstream references (as have appeared multiple times in XKCD and a few times in other high profile culture cauldrons. A policy needs to be established so that this same argument isn't had every single time. I suggest a redirect to the generating agent (XKCD in this case), a two to four week lock, and an automatic review of notability at the end of the lock period. Speed8ump (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to xkcd. Because it now is notable enough to be mentioned in that article. It shouldn't work this way, but guess what: the real world doesn't always work the way we want it to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, on the other hand, works exactly how we want it to. See Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "we", kemosabe? You don't speak for me. Stephen Aquila (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE #7 and possibly #10. No one will search for the term who is not already familiar with the comic, therefore, the term is highly unlikely to serve as a possible synonym for the comic and will not aid at all in the search for the article xkcd. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy just said pretty much what I was going to. Also, if this redirect is kept it sets a very dangerous precedent with regards to the numerous other instances of xkcd fans editing Wikipedia, most of which are clear vandalism. Nothing good comes from encouraging people to do things like this. Breaking the rules is only hard the first time. Maratanos (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know what people will search for, and who will be doing that searching? With all of the news articles out there about this term now, I think it's safe to say that non-XKCD fans are likely to be exposed to the term. Stephen Aquila (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case it falls under #10. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone else said, having a redirect informs a visitor that the word (and article) was indeed made up for the comic. Contrary to what another person said, the lack of a redirect or article does not necessarily say the same thing: the comic's metatext makes it clear that even inside the comic the word's notability was extremely questionable and if it did exist it could have been deleted due to non-notability or NOTDICT. (In fact, I went to the article because, if it was real, I intended to argue that the 1490s reference could not possibly be correct as portmanteau is a much more recent word (at least in that meaning), and a permutation of it that predates it is impossible.) And it's not like people are asking for an article here; only a redirect. Strunkenwhite (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage": reddit, slashdot, digg, etc. and 50k+ google hits. Check.
"Reliable" those websites are widely considered reliable news sources. Check.
"Multiple sources are generally expected." Check.
"Independent of the subject" Check.

It is notable by the guidelines imho. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of those sites are user controlled and none of them count as delivering significant coverage. Significant coverage is defined as coming from reliable sources. Slashdot, reddit, digg are not reliable news sources. Google hits haven't been used in years to determine notability on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. Redirects are our main technical solution to the problem of how to take users to the material they are looking for if the material is not housed directly under the search term. So long as we have material related to the word "malamanteau", and so long as it is conceivable that the user will search on that term, a redirect must be in place. Hesperian 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete a term appearing once in a comic isn't significant. it is unlikely that beyond a few days anyone will ever seriously be searching for this term.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to something that mentions it briefly or extend to short article. This topic is now notable. ~Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.115.207 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep redirect or extend to article. Going to agree with previous poster Fippy Darkpaw that by Wikipedia standards the topic is now notable. The existence of the word Malamanteau pre-dates XKCD's comic, it was already used in 2007 [8]. The thing has gotten an own life, has multiple media coverage around the globe and goes up and down in social networks (e.g. Twitter). Notability is per Wikipedia's definition not temporary, by now it could be possible to just keep the redirect or write an own article. I am kindly suggesting to consider WP:SNOW. - 83.249.211.2 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Until the word is actually used somewhere on Wikipedia, the redirects are useless, and I see no evidence that this comic is significant enough to deserve mention here. WP:MADEUP applies. Robofish (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do I need to remind people that languages are alive. If there would be no new words created, it would quickly become a dead language, like Latin. The creation of new words validate a language as alive, therefore new words, by whatever means created, should be kept. Klaranth May 14, 2010.
  • Keep; Article is now receiving main stream media coverage from Long Island Press. 211.10.18.77 (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, everyone in this discussion has seen that 10 times already. Unfortunately, passing mention does not constitute substantial coverage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no mention anywhere of a requirement for "substantial coverage". If you mean "significant coverage", that is defined as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That is a judgement call, but as it received its own paragraph and had its own distinct section reserved for it, I would say that it qualifies as significant coverage in that article.
        • From a simple copy and paste, which includes image captions, the bit about 'malamanteau' contains 62 words out of a total 969 in the article. That's not very much, and the article seems to be hardly significant. I mean if we really want to get detailed about how much space is devoted to the subject. LesterRoquefort (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a huge breakthrough in popular culture. Where language has ceased to exist on a "educational" level. We must embrace moving on into the future, expanding our vocabulary, and making words to fit new ideas. Lewis Carroll made a whole poem based on made up words. Dr. Seuss who we all grew up with made words up himself. This wonderful creation should be kept for future generations to see that we are branching out from set rules to a liberal mindset in open media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.33.152 (talk • contribs)
    • In response to you and to Kalranth above...I love the sight of people who suddenly fancy themselves linguists because they read a comic. Never mind that this is not how most new words are created (as much as the people at the Global Language Monitor would like you to believe) and that this word you are so excited about is of extremely limited usefulness. Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for "moving our language into the future", it is an encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is apparent that many non-contributors think Wikipedia is a joke. There are contributors who think it is, as well, but they are generally prevented from making a mess of things by other alert contributors. Let's bear in mind that there will sometimes be additions to serious articles which are removed because of their highly debatable nature. Wikipedia is not used to promote an agenda. Also, we do not have to make accommodations for every joke that's made, however popular the author of the joke is. I can't even imagine why there's a debate except for the fact that some fans of xkcd want to carry their joke over to a site that tries to be a serious source of information. I am a fan of the comic myself, but this is absurd. It's not our job to validate. As others have said, if it becomes part of the popular lexicon, add it to Wiktionary. Pandarsson (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but redirect to strip 739, or section in xkcd article; I don't want to repeat what everyone else voting for keep has already said, except to say I agree. Xkcd is pretty popular, and until I found this redirect I was under the impression that the word may indeed be a real part of the English language. (Engineering student here). It would probably be a good idea to redirect specifically to the strip referring to this made-up word. Creating a section in the Xkcd article and redirecting there also sounds very reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.212.108 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, per WP:R#KEEP provision 5. There are two sources cited in this revision, too - perhaps not enough for an article, but far more than enough for a redirect. I would also like to point out that WP:N does not apply to redirects, and note that none of any of you have cited anything from WP:R#DELETE, so there is zero reason to remove this redirect. --Zarel (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Defer as per Speed8ump. Review for notability when things have cooled off. Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirects. not enough notability for the phrase to have its own article, the bbc piece is not enough. no prejudice to adding a small note in the xkcd article about this, as its a good example of how the feedback loops of culture and language work, with at least minimal coverage. Not sure why people are so upset about this. If enough people in the real world decide to comment on this, and start using the word, then it may in fact get an article, so salting is silly. WP is not a parabolic reflector, we dont increase or concentrate the effects of culture onto our pages. we are not a mirror, as many things dont get reflected here. we are more like a partially mirrored glass, letting some things through... no, wait, we are Maxwell's demon, letting what is notable get reflected back and projected onto our site, and what is not notable gets through the glass and doesnt get reflected back here, all against entropy. hey, im a demon's minion!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect. The article is a target and needs to not exist, the redirect is harmless and will at least point people in the right direction. We have plenty of non-encyclopedic redirects, including spelling mistakes and non-notable memes. An IP user added this, but it was tagged with SPA - I'm repeating it here because I agree completely with it. "Follow the precedent set by "cromulent," which redirects to a subsection of the article for the Simpsons episode". Orpheus (talk) 08:14, 14 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=362059670"