Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manboobs

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Postdlf 06:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manboobs

unencyclopedic, to say the least Slac 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Gynecomastia. — RJH 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Breast -- it only refers to a man with larger breasts from fat usually, not an abnormality. gren 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't think this is normally used in the medical sense of the phrase. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dcarrano 16:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per gren -Harmil 17:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per RJH (first choice) or gren (second choice).- Mgm|^(talk) 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to breast, not Gynecomastia - nothing abnormal about Manboobs jamesgibbon 21:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gynecomastia, not Breast, because the former is about "male breasts", the latter, all breasts. Interested parties can use definition of former to determine whether they have clinical manboobs, or fatty manboobs (FYI, I have the latter). Xoloz 04:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• But the problem is when you redirect there the implication is that they have to be a clinical abnormality because manboobs has redirected to a clinical abnormality. Redirecting to breasts leaves it ambiguous and doesn't exactly say what manboobs are (and it needn't) because the saying, while it may not be a neologism, is definitely not something written about (which is why we can't have an article, it'd be original research). gren 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but I believe it is equally likely that a "Manboobs" searcher is concerned over whether the condition (in himself or friend/loved one) is clinical or not. The Gynecomastia article has, as I said, the additional benefit of actually describing exclusively male boobs, albeit not every (or even most) manboobs. Since I think your point is also a valid one, though, I'd understand deleting, since the likiest redirect may be indeterminable. Xoloz 06:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, there isn't a perfect redirect for this term... and it doesn't deserve an article... so, I made my case, now we'll see what happens :) gren 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Breast, although Gren's argument has some merit. JamesBurns 04:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gynecomastia --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Can't we just disambig between breast and gynecomastia? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't anyone recognize this as buffoonery? Just delete it. --Slac 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but... someone else will come back and create it, and it will go on. If it's a redirect it's less likely to be messed with. Unless of course you want delete with protection. I'm not exactly against that. gren 03:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Redirects/Disambigs are also cheap =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 08:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well in that case, redirect to breast fetishism --Slac 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Why? I know of no one who has a fetishistic interest in manboobs, and believe me, since I have manboobs and an interest in sexual fetishes, I have looked very hard. Xoloz 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I had a very compelling rationalization for it, but I just noticed that boobs redirects to sexual slang. Manboobs is a similarly denoting portmanteau and we might as well do the same. --Slac 21:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
              • Wow. I'm not sure how boobs got redirected to sexual slang, since I've heard plenty of usage for that one in non-sexual context (including my mother and grandmother sharing boob stories.) Of course, boob can have the informal meaning of "foolish", but breast seems the superior redirect there. Xoloz 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gynecomastia as a way of preventing recreation of a non-encylopaedic article. David | Talk 22:31, 16 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.