Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 28

March 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2009

Ethan Kanin → Recurring and minor characters in 24
The result of the discussion was Speedy close Fixed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Redirect to be deleted as there is no corresponding information on the target page. Character was a former minor character on 24 but is now a major character and so is no longer listed on the target page. Unless a full article is created for this character, this redirect has no point. Kidburla (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I now wish to CLOSE this nomination as the target page has been rectified. Kidburla (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Rule 34 → 34 (number)
The result of the discussion was RFD not applicable. It has been converted to an article (and one not on the original meme) so RFD is not applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I removed the mention of "Rule 34" from the 34 (number) article as there are no reliable sources that mention this meme. This redirect should probably be deleted and salted to prevent any potential abuse. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This again?  Okay, there are no "reliable sources", but the term IS in widespread use, and reliable sources are not needed for redirects. If we had reliable sources, there would be an article here.  This target has been fought over a lot, and this target is really the best one.  I'll be honest, I really don't care where it points, but it should point someplace.  Oh, and I restored the mention.  If this does get nuked or retargeted, go ahead and remove it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should it even be mentioned in the target? There's no way we'd ever find a source to mention it on the 34 article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because people look for this. It keeps coming up.  The meaning is not immediately obvious.  There should be something.  It should not be an article, and no better target for the redirect has ever been agreed on.  If you got one, feel free.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * soft redirect to wiktionary, and do something for rule 34 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does Wiktionary have listings for, say, "Over 9000"? Does it need them? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Wictionary policies. All I know is that I am not seeing the harm in this redirect.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOHARM --DFS454 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See the top of this page. "Harmless" is a valid argument for keeping a redirect.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It doesn't say that explicity. Further, according to WP:NOHARM it is an argument that should generally be avoided.--DFS454 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless it can be redirected to somewhere that actually discusses the meme -- which it can't, unless there are sources. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria of inclusion isn't truth but verifibility. Put simply if this can't be verified it should be deleted. For the same reason it should probably be removed from 34 (number) too.--DFS454 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Why have it anywhere if we can't freaking source it? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several redirects we cannot "source" on Wikipedia. Sourcing is not needed for redirects.  All that is needed is a likelyhood that someone will enter that term into the search bar.  And please wait until the RFD is finished before making changes to the target.  If this is deleted or retargeted, that should without question be removed.  But not yet. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean, source it in the 34 (number) article. You can't source a redirect, but you can (and should) source an article. If 34 (number) has a mention of "Rule 34" on it, it's going to be tagged with fact forever and a day, isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still see that as a list. And I'm not buying the "sourcing" argument.  I see no sources on 34 being Shaq's uniform number with the Lakers, or Edward Dante's prisoner number, or quite honestly for anything else on the page.  The page is simply a list of various meaning and uses of the number 34, and I would argue this belongs there.  However, it's really not the issue.  We're discussing the redirect.  And I haven't seen any reason the redirect isn't valid at all.  I'm only defending the target as part of the redirect...if someone can come up with a better one, or a really good reason for deletion, then yes, that part of the "34" article should be removed.  But that's not this discussion.  I hope I've made my viewpoint clear, at least.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * keep as it is currently included in the target. If it gets removed from the target at some point then the redirect can be removed too. PaulJones (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)