Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm in Miami Bi**h

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 was keep. Wrong venue. Please list at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Miami Bi**h

WP:CENSOR; Wikipedia is not censored. —Coastergeekperson 04^{'s talk}@ 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should be at RfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is there an easy, quick, and efficient way to move this discussion? —Coastergeekperson 04^{'s talk}@Jul/20/09 00:34 (Look, I changed my sig just moments ago!)
Keep Redirects are cheap, and this one is doing no harm. Some sources do list it with asterisks, and although yes, we're not censored, we also have to be sane and realize that the record company and radio stations censor themselves in turn. I see no need for a further RfD nomination either. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of a silly redirect. Regardless of whether they're cheap or not, do we have to have a "clean" version of every possibly offensive article title? If someone can't figure out what "bi**h" is, then make that a redirect to bitch instead. And if someone doesn't want to type a dirty word, they can ask their friend to so. Mandsford (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree these sorts of redirects shouldn't be created en masse, but while it's here there's really no point in deleting it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 20 July 2009 (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.