Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

10 August[edit]

Lonelygirl15→ Notable YouTube users[edit]

The nominated redirect was deleted early as its target was deleted and replaced by a category. —Mets501 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Lonelygirl15 was deleted per AfD consensus on August 9th. Article was created as a redirect, but as can be seen at the history and the talk page, the addition of Lonelygirl15 to the Notable YouTube users article has been rejected by those editing that article. That makes the Lonelygirl15 redirect useless because it is pointing to an article that will not contain any information about her.--Isotope23 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect (and add info correspondingly) if an individual article cannot be accepted. If I had it my way she would have her own article; too many people have looked at this from the wrong angle (yes, anybody can post a video on YouTube, and no, that doesn't make just anybody notable—but that is irrelevant) without considering the really amazing level of attention she's gotten, including a NYT article. Everyking 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, she didn't have her own NYT article. It was a blog post. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it wasn't published in the newspaper, but it was an article on their website written by one of their writers. Everyking 04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect (and add info correpondingly) - see explaination above - I am gobsmacked that someone as notable as LG15 does not justify a single mention on Wikipedia given the level of attention she is receiving across the internet. Please refer to [1] for details. After discussing with Bschott I conceed that the LG15 saga spans a short period of time and needs more time to be "noteable" by Wikipedia rules. I propose deletion and revisit the LG15 if and when she gets more media coverage. Tibi08 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know we had rules about the notability of a subject over an extended period of time. I thought something could be notable for any length of time at all and get an article—notice how we get all those great articles on events and people just hours (even minutes!) after notability occurs. Everyking 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Notability is not a rule, policy, or guideline. It is an essay; it is quite useful as far as essays are concerned. BigNate37(T) 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - nonnotable entity without an article which is what the article redirected to is, a list of youtube users with articles ←ΣcoPhreek→ 02:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what kind of logic is that? It is denied an article because some people think it only deserves mention within the scope of a broader article, and now somebody is going to say it shouldn't be mentioned there because it doesn't have an individual article? This is ridiculous. I have to think Lonelygirl is at least as notable as the people already included in this article, if attention and coverage are compared. Everyking 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Lonelygirl15's article was deleted per AfD because no verifiable reliable sources were produced to demonstrate she met WP:BIO. If she were added to Notable YouTube users, I would remove her for the same reason unless someone asserted a source that met WP:BIO (and not the same old tired NYT blog post again). Someone already tried to add her to Notable YouTube users and she was removed. The point still stands, this is a redirect to an article that has no information about the subject (and she should not be added unless someone can source that she meets WP:BIO). I've no predjudice against a redirect in the future if she meets WP:BIO at a later date (or a full article about her at the name space); right now this redirect is useless though.--Isotope23 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, sources are right here. Take your pick. And by the way, she is the fourth most subscribed YouTube channel of all time now. Everyking 10:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, All I see are blogs, trivial mentions, and short blurbs... nothing that comes even close to a reliable source and nothing that meets WP:BIO... sorry, she falls well short for inclusion and as I've stated above, this redirect is a dead end if it leads somewhere that does not mention her.--Isotope23 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is amazing. All of the sources are "reliable" in the sense that they confirm her notability. What do you want? Does she need to have a book published about her, or would that also not be sufficient? Look at the other people included on the list. Shouldn't we apply the same standard to Lonelygirl as we've applied to them? Everyking 18:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, let us look. Emmalina passed an AfD because she has been mentioned twice by the Sydney Morning Herald (in the paper not just online), and twice by the Washington Post(in the paper..not just online). Brooke Brodack passed an AfD because she has been mentioned in many sources, including the magazine Vanity, Rolling Stone, and various newspaper/tv news reports. BowieChick was interviewed on the CBS News Nightly Report, and was featured in The Guardian and by ZDNet. Kwai Chi is an actor that has appeared in two movies as well as various newspaper articles for his dual role as an actor and YouTuber. Geriatric1927 is in AfD right now because while he was mentioned in various articles, the all are a word for word repeat of each other...however he was mentioned on a BBS report. LG15 only has a blog from the NYTimesonline mention. Blogs are not acceptable per Wikipeida's standards. Beyond that, all the others have multiple mentions from independent Third-Party Reliable Sources. LG15 does not have that. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment, Brian has it exactly right. All others listed at the redirect target meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I will chime in here. EveryKing, the sources do not pass WP:V, WP:OR orWP:RS's criteria for reputable sources. Blogs, Forums, and personal websites do not count. The 'popularity' on YouTube does not count. The Notable YouTube users page was designed because the community concensus was that individual users were not to be on the main YouTube page. Individual articles were created but even the links were not allowed as an edit war arrose from it. Finally, I stepped in and suggested merging all the YouTube users that had articles into one article. That merger was opposed. So, we had related articles but no way to link them. I finally found a compromise between the two sides and made this article/catagory. One link from the main article was ok'ed by the exclusion crowd to a page that listed all the notable users, the inclusion crowd wanted to make sure that this was just a list of people with Wiki Articles only. There stipulation was that 1) A person must have a wikipedia article 2)A person's article must pass all WP rules including WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:OR etc. 3) A person must derive their notability exclusively from YouTube 4)the page/list was not to take the place of individual pages (sneaky merger) but to satisfy the rules, each listing had to include the media coverage that person received. I had the thankless (but somewhat fun) job of dancing in the fire. LG15 failed the AFD and because of that her page was removed. Since she no longer has a page, she no longer is listed on the Notable YouTube users list. While quite a few people do look for her on here, I think a link from her name to the Notables list is a mixed blessing. It shows people that some 'Tubers' are notable but then it brings up the question 'well why isn't xxxxx on this list', and some anon decides to add them, then is bent out of shape when their entry is removed. I'd go with Delete just because it has caused more trouble than it has been worth --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All blogs are not created equal. This particular blog was written by a writer for the NY Times, Virginia Heffernan, and is posted on the NY Times website. I've never encountered such a stringent requirement for notability before. I have battled it out on inclusion/deletion questions innumerable times, but it's a rare day indeed when the NY Times can write about something and that isn't deemed sufficient to settle the matter. You keep talking about these policies, WP:V, WP;OR, but she obviously passes all of them, since the content is all easily verifiable just through the link I posted above to a set of articles about her. It leaves me thoroughly baffled. Furthermore, a YouTube user with roughly equivalent notability, Geriatric1927, is now passing AfD with a resounding majority. I'm thinking that something just went badly wrong in the original AfD and now it's getting a hard time here just because of some stigma associated with failing an AfD. Everyking 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is not only was it a blog but the fact that all she had WAS the blog (and some other blogs, personal websites and a local newspaper) mentioned her. WP:BIO states multiple, Independent, Reliable, third-party sources. She doesn't meet it but the others have. Geriatric1927 will pass AfD, though I personally believe he shouldn't as the article is a word-for-word repeat in all the newspapers and even read as the TV BBS news script. I personally believe is constitutes a single source but what do I know...and really that is neither here nor there. I have gotten off topic. WP has standards. The consensus from the editors of WP is that Brookers and Emmalina both passed AfD because they passed WP:BIO with their press coverage. Bowiechick hasn't had and AfD but I believe it is because she was interviewed by the nationally broadcasted CBS nightly news. LG15's AfD happened after all these and it was decided she didn't pass. For your information, I DID vote keep on her, but later changed my mind. There is no stigma here. She failed an AfD for a reason. Perhaps when she passes WP:BIO someone can contest the AfD. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources provided for Geriatric1927 more than meet WP:BIO and WP:RS with articles written at Reuters, Guardian, et al (in fact I removed Geriatric1927 from the YouTube article and then immediately reinstated it when I saw that he had a standalone article and viewed the sources there). Even a blog written by a NYT writer & posted at the NYT website is still a blog... this could certainly be debated either way, but I personally just don't consider a blog with no editorial oversight to be a very reliable source, nor is it a very good indication of "notability" in the WP:BIO sense.--Isotope23 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a redirect without a relevant target is useless and misleading. With no mention of her on the target page someone is going to type it in as a search and be rather confused - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd hope that a successful redirection vote would at least force the addition of the info to the page. Everyking 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean force information about her on the page? Well, no, that would not happen since then we would have to allow ANYONE that has a YouTube account to post themselves there. Where would the cut off be? "You can be mentioned but you can't". The page is designed for only people that have articles about them on Wikipedia already. It was designed to be a link between all the pages...YouTube's main article and all the users that have articles...not a page for anyone to drop their name on. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE This may be something to bring up, but I am actually looking into creating a subcatagory (Users) or (Notable users) under the YouTube parent catagory. The reasoning is this: 1)Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't pass WP's standards. 2)They are all famous or notable for their videos on YouTube 3)The page is only there to link users that have pages here at WP so what is the difference between this and a Catagory? A catagory would make it easier for people to traverse between each userpage as well and make things neater. It would also end these kind of arguements that "'XXXX' deserves mention because they are notable on YouTube."... Now, 'XXXX' needs to have an article before being included in the catagory and if they have an article, it can be debated in a consenus of editors if the article truely stands up to WP's standards. Thoughts? --Brian (How am I doing?) 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was converted into a Catagory so a redirect is pretty much pointless at this time. I would ask an admin to close this discussion as the debate is now basically a moot point. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

NedCar BV: Mitsubishi Colt - smart Forfour → Mitsubishi Colt[edit]

The nominated redirect was Redirect deleted, attributions preserved. --Cyde Weys 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading, incorrect (title mentions subjects of three separate articles, not just Colt) and absolutely redundant (who would type THAT in?) redirect resulting from an AfD. Bravada, talk - 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Useless from a search standpoint, but it exists to preserve the GDFL chain after a merge. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Global Warming Survey → Global warming survey → Scientific opinion on climate change[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept --Cyde Weys 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

String of nonsense redirects--172.147.153.86 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia Templates → Wikipedia:Template messages[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted --Cyde Weys 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is cross-namespace redirect from Main namespace to Wikipedia namespace. real_decimic 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And has no incoming links, so can be simply deleted without harm. Kusma (討論) 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm and it serves to reduce confusion among new users who are trying to find the templates but don't yet know the intricacies of our namespaces. It is clearly labeled as a Wikipedia page and can not be confused for an article. It meets bullets 3 and 5 of Avoid deleting redirects if:. Rossami (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. New users are much more likely to search for template or templates which results in a disambig with a link to the target. As far as doing no harm, the pros & cons of cross-namespace are covered at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. -- JLaTondre 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. The article namespace should be reserved for articles only. --Hetar 04:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Users searching for wikipedia templates come across this page and use the redirect service. It also meets bullets 3 and 5 of Avoid deleting redirects if: as quoted above. It also doesn't hurt wikipedia in having it. --Bob 21:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:SELF, a style guide, makes a good arguement for how this hurts the project. BigNate37(T) 03:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete learn the namespaces. ViridaeTalk 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not everyone is geeky enough to know everything off the bat. --Bob 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So why make it more difficult for them to learn it by confusing/entwining the name spaces from day one? Regards, MartinRe 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does harm by returning non-encyclopedic results for people searching for encyclopedia topics, and increases confusion for new users by blurring the line between the encyclopedia and wikipedia. While "redirects are cheap" that cost mounts up when a lage number of redirects are involved, and forcing mirrors are to download non-encyclopedic content when all they want is the encyclopedia is not acceptable in my view in exchange for them "being useful" to a subset of editors who can used bookmarks/userpages to achieve the same goal. Regards, MartinRe 23:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User talk:zhanster --> user talk:demonblade[edit]

The nominated redirect was Deleted by JoJan (db-test). -- JLaTondre 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demonblade 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Common critcisms of Windows XP → Common criticisms of Windows XP[edit]

The nominated redirect was Kept (Now that I am refershing on policy Hetar is right) RN 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is mispelled and unused :). (maybe a speedy?) RN 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We don't delete redirect simply because they are mispelled or unused. No harm in keeping this. --Hetar 04:31, 11 August 2006 (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/2006_August_10&oldid=1138574030"