Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bun huggers

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGED. dbenbenn | talk 21:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bun huggers

Not notable, and unencyclopedic. Spinboy 23:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, trivial construction, not encyclopedic, unhelpful. Wyss 00:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Is there somewhere to redirect this? Specific articles of clothing can be encyclopedic, though this is not. Meelar (talk) 02:10, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT shorts takes a few seconds. VfD takes five days voting time, plus more processing time for the sysop who handles the results. Be bold. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I strongly oppose redirecting things like that without merging the content. Shorts" doesn't say anything specifically about "bun huggers" so anyone who typed that in will be either confused or disappointed. Kappa 05:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why don't you add the specifc part to the article it's re-directed to? Are you not capable? --Spinboy 05:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I've just done that, and expanded with some google results, but if it was redirected without coming to VfD I wouldn't have known about it. Kappa 06:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shorts. Returns 9,000+ Google hits. Megan1967 06:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.