Talk:Fudgepacker


 * Fudgepacker
 * Dictionary def. Tuf-Kat 02:37, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia not a slang dictionary.Ark30inf 02:38, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Agree, delete. --Flockmeal 03:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I've made it into a redirect. Keep! User:Drolsi Susej 03:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * It isn't a redirect, and it's offensive. Delete. RickK 05:39, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Just so that people don't get confused: Whether it's a redirect or not keeps changing (or at least was changing back and forth for a while). Both Drosli and RickK were correct at the moment that they made their comments. -- Toby Bartels
 * Delete-&#25140;&#30505sv
 * Del. --Menchi 06:52, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete -- don't redirect -- offensive. I'm not even sure the anout of detail on the subject in the article if it's redirected is necessary... -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If the content merged into Homophobic hate speech is kept (and I see no reason why it shouldn't be, as it is as valid an example of homophobic hate speech as any), then deletion after merging is not an option. If content is used from a page, then it is an infringement of the terms of the GFDL to delete the information on the authorship of that content. The simplest way to preserve the information on authorship is to keep the page, and thereby its history. It should therefore be kept, at least as a redirect. -- Oliver P. 05:40, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This term, according to the article, is a direct insult to me personally, as I am queer, biologically male, and a common top during anal sex (these days). Nevertheless, I found the information in the article interesting, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it should be kept. However, given the article's short length, its content could reasonably be moved to Homophobic hate speech, replacing the original article with a redirect. But abbreviation of that content (except where duplicated, or found to be wrong or unsupported) would not be appropriate. The current situation, where the content appears on neither page, is little more than censorship (inadvertent, presumably, since this current situation is the result of edits by different people). -- Toby Bartels 21:44, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The situation as it currently stands is all right (perhaps not ideal, but the matter does not need to be pressed further). Of course, the redirect, as is usual when a stub is incorporated into a larger entry, should not be deleted. -- Toby Bartels 04:17, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the redirect. We generally don't delete offensive redirects (cf AIDS Kills Fags Dead), and Oliver is correct to point out issues of attribution, etc. Early votes seem to be referring to pre-redirect circumstance, so not relevant. Anyway, it can be relisted easily enough. Martin 12:56, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)