Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joo

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 REDIRECT to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. JIP | Talk 10:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joo

Delete. Resuming AfD per my comments below. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and nothing links to this page. Hbackman 00:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not worth a TransWiki. --Kinu 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Move to Journal of Oregon Ornithology and redirect per below to keep the new, legitimate information. --Kinu 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• The article has been completely rewritten, and the new subject seems legit. It still should be moved to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Royboycrashfan 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I fixed it, let's keep it Ruby 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but move. I agree with Royboycrashfan. The new article is worth keeping, but JOO should redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Changed my mind in light of Aaron's comment. Hbackman 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldy Moved, Speedy Keep The original deletion criteria no longer apply, and the nominator seems to have withdrawn their nomination. Night Gyr 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Even the new article appears to be nn. The last issue of JOO was published 10 years ago, and the publication has only 138 unique Google hits. --Aaron 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think this was handled correctly, as the original Joo article, which had nothing to do with the Journal of Oregon Ornithology, was completely destroyed in the page move. I'll leave Journal of Oregon Ornithology as-is for now (though I still think it's nn), but I'm reverting Joo and resuming the AfD on that version. --Aaron 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I will ask for the page to be protected pending the outcome of this discussion if it's reverted again. Besides, according to WP:MOS, Joo shouldn't redirect to an article with the initials J.O.O. anyway. That's what JOO is for (which already exists and redirects to Journal of Oregon Ornithology). --Aaron 17:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete if Joo does not continue to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology. Ruby 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Because of current redirect - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in any guise, since as Aaron notes JOO is the correct article to redirect to Journal of Oregon Ornithology, not Joo, and the original content was dictionary. -- Mithent 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. It can't hurt, and it might help a very small number of searchers.--ragesoss 22:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Leet. Adrian Lamo ·· 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect as it is. It looks harmless. Take this to redirects for deletion if necessary. Peyna 04:02, 9 February 2006 (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.