Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupping ton

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupping ton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DICDEF supported only by the dubious Cardarelli. Google books finds just two occurrences of the term - both in books by Cardarelli. Oxford English Dictionary has no entry for "Stupping". No convincing evidence for the existence of this unit. Ahah: just found Shipping ton, for which it is a pretty obvious misprint/misreading. PamD 11:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Groan, yes, I suppose it's a simple(!) misprint. (But the head spins trying to read all that ("genuine", sourced) stuff about various sorts of "tons" used to measure volume.) Imaginatorium (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus, redirect having attracted zero support. ~~Redirect – Either to Shipping ton or Stuppington.~~ – Margin1522 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect: It doesn't seem a worthwhile redirect for either - there could be millions of redirects from similar misreadings / random splittings of syllables, and we don't include them all. Let's just delete. PamD 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Um, yes, but I understand that we don't actually save any space by deleting an article. I thought if we could save one more puzzled reader a trip to the OED it would be worth it. Unless it's just too silly to display in the search box menu. In that case I have no objection to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose "mystery redirects": "stupping" is not in the OED, so we can't save a dictionary trip, and an unexplained redirect would leave the reader mystified. If it appeared that "stupping ton" had been copied to every units conversion site, the only helpful thing would be to describe it (somewhere) as a "notable misprint". Imaginatorium (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changing my !vote. In this case I hope it's salted so that no one can create it again.– Margin1522 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at the topic in detail and agree that this is a misprint for shipping ton. In my view, we should not maintain misprints as redirects unless they seem especially likely. Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mistakes supported by only one source should not be perpetuated with an article or redirect. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No brainer - if I misspell "acclereator" in a paper tomorrow, that doesn't mean it gets an entry. PianoDan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2015 (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.