Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2010

Hoo-hah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moot as stub article was created while the discussion was going on (non admin close). I'll leave the option of a Wiktionary link to someone else. B.Wind (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by reason 9: the target article contains little information on the subject. Yecril (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mad_recurring_features#Running_gags_and_recurring_images which says The word "hoohah" was an early running gag, often exclaimed by excited characters in the comic book issues written by Harvey Kurtzman; the very first story in the first issue of Mad was titled "Hoohah!". Its Eastern European feel was a perfect fit for the New York Jewish style of the publication. (The word's precise origin is unknown, although it may have sprung from the Hungarian word for "wow," which is hűha). something which used to be on the Mad (magazine) page. --Rumping (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment wherever this redirects to should probably have a link to the Wiktionary entry wikt:hoo-ha. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Spearchucker[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep and protect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by reason 3: The terminology is offensive. This is being vandalized daily as a redirect to Barack Obama. Pfranson (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although it's being used for vandalism, it all seems to be coming from anonymous editors. The redirect itself is valid, and not offensive in and of itself. If it had been created as a redirect to Barack Obama (instead of to a disambiguation page), it would be offensive by nature. This looks like a candidate for semi-protection, but not deletion. —LedgendGamer 22:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I protected the page for 1 week to prevent it being vandal-retargetted. --Taelus (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as the target exists. This is a valid spacing variant of the target title, and the vandalism is a reason to protect it (as has now been done), not a reason to delete a useful redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see why a redirect "Spearchucker" is offensive if an article "Spear chucker" exists; and WP:NOTCENSORED. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reason 3 only applies if the redirect is supposed to go to an inappropriate article. This one is only offensive due to vandalism. No reason to delete, especially as it's been semi-protected. We don't delete articles when they get vandalised, however frequent the vandalism may be. Redirects should be no different, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect as it points to a disambiguation page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect it points to a disambiguation page with two cited referenced articles, indef protect it so it wont be vandalized. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_12&oldid=1141906738"