Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

Prima Vera → Primavera[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 23:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a disambiguation page, but the article name is not a typo for Primavera — see [1]. Zigger «º» 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't see the harm in this one. --UsaSatsui 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If someone ever wants to write an article on the Norwegian comedy group by this name (and can demonstrate its notability), they can overwrite the redirect. The redirect does not need to be deleted from pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Basically, per Rossami. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect can come down if a new article on them is written and notable. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:ITSWELLSOURCED → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's sourced[edit]

The result of the debate was delete, unnecessary. ♠PMC♠ 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, unnecessary and excessive redirect. Target discusses cases that are poorly sourced--well sourced articles are by definition notable per WP:N (but may be deleted for other reasons). Probably created from a redlink at this DRV. Dhaluza 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. First, I agree it seems to originate from that deletion discussion you linked. Second, I agree that it's a bit excessive, maybe even unnecessary, judging by the list of shortcuts already targeting that same page (WP:ITSSOURCED, WP:ITCITESSOURCES, WP:ITSVERIFIABLE, WP:ITSUNSOURCED). The admin from that discussion could've easily typed in any of the other shortcuts, yet didn't to improve the context of their argument. Sadly, I don't see a need for more than four easily remembered shortcuts. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-sourced articles are not by definition notable, which is exactly what the target discusses. Many things that were shortly in the news, for example, have lots of references, but aren't notable per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's true that I got the idea for adding this section after I read that DRV, and indeed, sources are often an indicator of notability, but not always. I don't really see the need for deleting this redirect; it is a bit excessive, yes, but it does make sense, can be useful, and doesn't do any harm. Keep. Melsaran (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A reasonable interpretation of "well sourced" would be of sufficient number and quality, which would completely satisfy the core requirements of WP:N (NOTNEWS is a different policy), so your assertion is not correct. This shortcut is misleading at best. The target discusses different problems with sourcing which contradicts "well sourced". Dhaluza 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have, on WT:ATA, raised an objection over the presence of this entire section in the essay, since the presence of sources define whether something is verifiable, and plays a major role in determining if it's notable. Arguments on the presence ot lack of sources are arguments based on perfectly sound reasons, and hard to classify as an "argument to avoid", to the contrary, sources to an article are something which should be raised in an AFD. I agree with Dhaluza the redirect here, that something is well-sourced is not at least a reason to keep, is misleading. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I really don't understand the problem here. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) nulled Kwsn(Ni!) 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Puerto Rico/Transportation → Transportation in Puerto Rico[edit]

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created waaay back in 2002, but moved to the correct name in Transport in Puerto Rico, and finally Transportation in Puerto Rico. It's an implausible and unlikely search term, possibly created as a test or by error (I wasn't around back then). No incoming links, so it's best to 'delete.' Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, old redirect from the way things used to be done a long time ago. Might still be useful on some old page versions or from old links from outside of Wikipedia. Plus, it clearly does no harm, so does not need to be deleted. Kusma (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirect makes sense and doesn't do any harm. A remainder from the old mainspace subpages. There are plenty of these redirects, see for example [2]. Melsaran (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is this plausible, after the link has had no use after 5 years? I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination once this is clarified. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that the link has had "no use after 5 years"? The fact that the redirect page has not been changed does not mean that the link has not been followed.
      There are really only two ways to try to figure out if a link is in use - search for internal links using "what links here" and search for external links using google Advanced Search. Both of them are seriously flawed. The Wikipedia search for inbound links only shows the current links. The redirect could be all over the history. If it's been recently removed from current pages, we won't see that - until a page is reverted to an older version or someone follows page history to review an archived debate. A google search for inbound links from external sites is even less reliable. The google search also only shows the recent cache and is notorious for its inability to find many inbound links. We have no reliable way of knowing what external sites still have a link to the old format. Rossami (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I still have my reservations, consensus is clear to preserve historical links. So, withdraw nomination. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

KOMU-LP → WPXS[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted by Rossami as db-author. -- JLaTondre 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the KOMU-LP & WPXS articles (as an anon. editor), but WPXS has no "KOMU-LP" repeater, nor is "KOMU-LP" listed in the FCC records. So I believe that KOMU-LP should be deleted. -ILikePikachu v|d 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things that you did in error can be speedy-deleted and do not generally need discussion here. In the future, just tag the page with {{db-author}}. That's not available if others have started editing the page (because of GFDL requirements) but is allowed when you are the only substantive editor.
    I endorse the speedy-deletion in this case even though there has been subsequent editing to the page because the edit history shows that it has all been vandalism and the reverting of vandalism - no substantive edits. There are no GFDL problems here. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2007 (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/2007_September_12&oldid=1138575066"