Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2010

Locomotives formally resident on the Watercress Line[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 WP:CSD#R3 indeed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-type in original article name (now corrected) which is potentially confusing and would be found before the actual article name in search lists. Also an unlikely search term. EdJogg (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Speedy) delete. This meets the spirit of G6 and R3 even if not the letter. Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kitten huffing[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 Keep, content covered in target article pending discussion. Consider relisting if consensus is gained to remove it there. --Taelus (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. It's just an injoke that could never be possibly mentioned as no secondary source has ever pointed it out — mentioning it as an injoke would therefore run afoul of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the redirect refers to a bit of nonsense originating in Uncyclopedia([1]). Since it's not a notable meme that was noticed by any reliable source, it's time to put this redirect (and the next one, below) to sleep. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, this is just an Uncyclopedia in-joke and not a notable topic in its own right. However, these two variants were viewed 294 times in January 2010 alone, so people are searching for it. Redirecting to Uncyclopedia tells each of those searchers where to find kitten huffing (especially and specifically, Not Here), and hopefully discourages them from adding unwanted article material at these titles. Just as with some of the 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica redirects, these serve a legitimate purpose even if they don't point to content specific to their title. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per WP:V. If Wikipedia redirected me to a page, I would expect to find something about it on that page, and I would waste time looking for it, and perhaps even add material about it to the page I ended up as. Polarpanda (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects do not need the same kind of sourcing as other content. We have redirects from typos, after all. So WP:V doesn't apply directly. Nevertheless, there is .Net magazine, and I am sure, many other mentions of borderline quality, if someone actually wanted to make an article. Gimmetrow 02:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible search term that gets more hits than some good and featured articles. Nomination is procedurally improper for failure to notify and link to previous RfD. Gimmetrow 17:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence above is mystifying as originator of redirect is indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account (TPH actually put the notification on the talk page before he blanked it, apparently after discovering the block); history or redirect shows no indication of its being a subject of an AfD; but other redirects to the same target page have been deleted through RfD. While Gavia has a valid point about discouraging recreations and other similar pieces of nonsense that don't need to be posted at these titles, deleting and salting this (and the one below) would accomplish the same thing, for an unprotected redirect can be overwritten at any time. Thus I urge to delete and salt these two redirects. B.Wind (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting these would not do much good for the ~300 people per month who are looking for these redirects. If there's consensus to protect these, they can just as easily be protected with the redirect intact, which will give those searchers at least a tiny bit of information. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since apparently the mere mention of a previous RfD was not enough for a commentor to find one, here: [2] [3] TPH even listed it once before! Gimmetrow 02:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] Article indeed had content about this very topic, which was removed by the same editor shortly before nominating this redirect. The .net (magazine) article was referenced immediately before the removed content. Content is now restored. Gimmetrow 02:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Absurd. But the South Park episode Major Boobage actually deals with what (I thought) the redirect is referring to. Granted, it's kitten urine not kittens, but if these are popular, we might as well be making use of them. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I agree. The plot in that episode, in true South Park style, deals with inhaling male cat spray. The cats in question aren't kittens, and as far as I recall the word "huffing" is never used. I think this would create a particularly confusing and nonsensical redirect. ~ mazca talk 12:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as material now mentioned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current target; from my experience it's a pretty well-known joke associated with Uncyclopedia - and as pointed out by Gimmetrow it does now receive a sourced mention in the target article. Additionally, the redirect probably does a good job of preventing people from creating silly articles while simultaneously giving them a good hint as to where they should create such articles. ~ mazca talk 12:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - typing 'Kitten huffing' into the search box gives Uncyclopedia as third choice, behind 'Kitten Huffing' and 'Kitten huffing'. Once the redirects are deleted, Uncyclopedia would come first. Don't see how this can be any inconvenience to the 10 people daily who search here for the term. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The search term would only work if the content remains in the article, which is a concern, since the editor who nominated this redirect for deletion removed all relevant content from the target article minutes before nominating the redirect for deletion. Gimmetrow 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's used, it's needed. The material has now been restored to the article. Removing the target and then not mentioningthat in the redirect nomination does not seem to me the most straightforward way of doing things. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uncyclopedia now again includes mention of kitten huffing, so the redirect is fine. Fences&Windows 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kitten Huffing[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 Keep, content covered in target article pending discussion. Consider relisting if consensus is gained to remove it there. --Taelus (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. It's just an injoke that could never be possibly mentioned as no secondary source has ever pointed it out — mentioning it as an injoke would therefore run afoul of WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, this is just an Uncyclopedia in-joke and not a notable topic in its own right. However, these two variants were viewed 294 times in January 2010 alone, so people are searching for it. Redirecting to Uncyclopedia tells each of those searchers where to find kitten huffing (especially and specifically, Not Here), and hopefully discourages them from adding unwanted article material at these titles. Just as with some of the 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica redirects, these serve a legitimate purpose even if they don't point to content specific to their title. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - read my comments/recommendation above. There's a fine line between archiving and advertising - Wikipedia is not here to advertise its parodies, particularly those that are not covered/reviewed/commented on by reliable sources. Big fans who insist upon looking up these two nonsense terms are welcome to check at Deletionpedia as well. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per comments above and previous RfDs. Gimmetrow 02:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Major Boobage as per my comment above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as material now mentioned. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and do not retarget, per comments at above discussion. ~ mazca talk 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my recommendation for 'kitten huffing' above. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it's used, it's needed. The material has now been restored to the article. Removing the target and then not mentioning that in the redirect nomination does not seem to me the most straightforward way of doing things. First get actual consensus forthe removal of the content, --which does not seem all that likely. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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_26&oldid=1091465509"