Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 5

MoS:TM → Manual of Style (trademarks)
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect (omg terrible awful), should be deleted. Hbdragon88 07:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep: MoS: appears to be a pseudo-namespace for MoS redirects. If you disagree, then a mass nomination would be better than nominating just one. --ais523 13:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. MoS and MOS are commonly used pseudo-namespaces. --- RockMFR 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whish really isn't that good as MOS is an article dab page. But very well, I see that this is beyond the scope of one RfD, and will require a broader discussion. Hbdragon88 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per ais523 &gt;Kamope&lt;   Talk  ·  Sign Here  21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the above. Also, I just happened to type that very thing into the search box while I was looking for that very page, so you really can't say it's not useful. --Ihope127 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pussy licking → Oral sex
The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Highly unlikely search term, highly inappropriate, and nothing links to it except for RfD. &gt;Kamope&lt;  Talk  ·  Sign Here  21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep An absence of links does not dilute its usefulness. It is a slang term and the redirect prevents people from believing that no such article exists and creating one.  Kind of like GTFO, also offensive, with few incoming links, but redirects to List of Internet slang. Hbdragon88 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful slang redirect. Please do not nominate articles for deletion because they are "inappropriate". --- RockMFR 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia isn't censored. 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's plausible that someone will search for this. - Richardcavell 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan Schneider (TV/Movie Producer, Writer, Actor) → Dan Schneider (TV producer)
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC) It is not likely that anyone would type in the redirect title. The redirect page was actually created by another editor as a duplicate of the target article Dan Schneider (TV producer), but I changed it into a redirect to reduce confusion. Metropolitan90 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely search. John Reaves (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The pages involved have received a couple of moves in the last 24 hours which have been unduly confusing. I don't care whether this person's main page is at Dan Schneider (TV producer) or Dan Schneider (actor); I just want to avoid having a redirect that uses his entire resume as a qualifier. --Metropolitan90 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Whether it ends up at actor or TV producer, this redirect in entirely unnecessary.-- Wizardman 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Metropolitan90 about there being too many moves with this article. Pick a title and stay with it. But having the entire resume in the title must go.--Alabamaboy 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, the article has just been moved to Dan Schneider (TV/Movie Producer, Writer, Actor). I'm going to try and convince the editor that this isn't a good way to do this.--Alabamaboy 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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