- 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 muscle. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the nickname of a fellow of unknown identity who tried to get this nickname copyrighted. Notability not indicated, no proof provided and likely to be unverifiable sufficiently for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to muscle. 23skidoo 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect as above. An article about some guy's nickname? And not exactly an uncommon nickname either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per above. Flowerparty■ 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Delete and redirect. --Optichan 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to muscle. It is what most people searching for the term would expect to find. The only notable guy with the nickname "Muscles" was Ken Rosewall, the Australian tennis player and he has an article. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of muscles of the human body. This reasoning is based on the use I've seen in the various articles that link to muscles and considering the comments above; my thinking is that if someone takes the effort in a search string to type "muscles" rather than "muscle" then they might not be looking for information on the tissue per se but for an access point to find out about different muscles, a list, an index of them. Along with this redirect, I'd suggest creating a Muscle (disambiguation) page that would provide a pivot point between muscle, muscles, and the (rare but notable) few instances of using "muscles" as a nickname or stagename. Courtland 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- previous inserted comment' I'll indicate my opinion on keep or delete after finishing a run through the "what links here" list ... it is sometimes the case that previously "hidden" uses or notability emerge after such a combing (based on experience from clearing what-links-here lists from disambiguation pages). It was due to this potential that I did not initially just revert the edit to Muscle that introduced this *sigh* poor addition to that article. Courtland 15:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC) removal of unhelpful words[reply]
- Redirect to muscle. I have looked at many of the "what links here" links in question, and even began correcting some, before Wikipedia got slow on me. Jacqui ★ 04:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Revert to the version of 18:32, 8 May 2003. Vegaswikian 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- you must mean [1], the first version. Courtland 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's basically a vote for a redirect with no deletion, right? --Optichan 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to muscle. Edwardian 06:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.