Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chud (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chud (disambiguation)

Nothing links here, no need for this disambiguation. Doesn't fit any speedy criterion, and it's not just a redirect, so here it is. brenneman^(t)(c) 10:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If it serves no purpose, I think it can be speedied. Be bold! Dottore So 12:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 'Nothing links here' isn't a reason to delete a disambiguation page - nothing should link to disambiguation pages except the back links however this page should still be deleted because it links to 2 pages, one of which has been deleted (chud = homeless people) and the other of which is spelled differently.Filceolaire 13:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment no opinon on deletion, but I've never heard Chud refer to homless people... and the link to the most common usage isn't even explained... Man I loved that movie.--Isotope23 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (see below); webster online says that the word exists, but is not in the free version [1]; can anyone verify this one? my paper dictionary has no entry for chud (yes, I checked a paper dictionary, believe it or not); urbandictionary has more than one entry on that, none indicating homeless people [2]. Anyway, there are two pages in wikipedia that one wants to disambiguate (chud and chudes), and disambiguation pages exist for that. I have changed the page to reflect the actual content of the links. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment in that case this is a dicdef though... not exactly a strong case to keep the wikipedia article...--Isotope23 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment to clarify. Currently, the disambiguation page is about chud, which redirects to C.H.U.D., the movie and chudes, the people. If this looks reasonable, the disambiguation page should be kept even wihout the dictdef chud=homeless. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment, sorry... misunderstood your original post. Thanks for the clarification.--Isotope23 03:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• What happened. A tangental AfD made me think of this film. I typed in the actual title C.H.U.D and ended up on Chud, with the note "Redirected from CHUD" and the "Other uses - Chud" tag. The first line of Chud said it was another name for homeless people, and it was never mentioned again in the article. Once that was removed as unsourced, it was a movie under the wrong title, simple. Once that was fixed (moved content back to C.H.U.D., tidied layout, fixed redirect, etc) the disambiguation made no sense to me. These things do not have the same name, no possibility for confusion exists, unless there is a reasonable possibility that people will type "Chud" when looking for Chudes? - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment; I had never heard of the Chudes before and had never saw the movie. My point is that the article about chudes calls the single person of the group a chud. That one searches chud while looking for the people therefore seems to me a quite likely possibility. It is not even completely clear to me why chud should redirect to C.H.U.D. and not to chudes, given that chud is the correct spelling for a single person of the chudes and the wrong spelling for the acronym of the movie.

In passing, I am not criticizing the nomination -- the original disambiguation page was a reasonable candidate for AfD given that it contained only a real link and a dictdef. I think that the best possible configuration is that: 1. chud is removed; and 2. chud (disambiguation) is moved to chud. Or, if you prefer, the content of chud (disambiguation) is moved to chud (deleting the redirect directive) and the former is removed. This second solution has the advantage that the page to remove is already here on AfD. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Even better: Normal form for (non-mythical) people appears to be singular: Inuit, Aborigine. Thus move Chudes to Chud put {{other uses}} at the top of it and C.H.U.D., leave CHUD pointing as it is now, and still delete this disambig.
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment very good idea. I agree. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have requested moving chudes to chud, which is voted in Talk:Chudes. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.