Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2009

LeetIRC[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeLeet. This article was redirected to circumvent notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory of software, including chat software, and this product is not notable in any event. I suggest that the redirect be deleted and the list it is redirected to be cleaned up of non-notable products. JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Abuse of process by User:JBsupreme. See AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to keep to the subject at hand, your repeated personal attacks are uncalled for. The closing administrator will weigh out the arguments accordingly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for the promotion of products, free or not. The standards for the content of a list are certainly lower than the standards for an independent article, but lists need to have some kind of inclusion criteria in order to avoid becoming promotional vehicles. In the sense that this is a redirect, the product name is an unlikely search term so the choice to make a redirect is poor. The list article does not provide any context at all about this piece of software, so the choice of redirect targets is poor. Miami33139 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as long as LeetIRC is notable enough to be included in the list at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, this redirect is helpful. It is not doing any harm, and will direct any users who search with this term to the correct location. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comparison article has no inclusion criteria, so everything is notable enough to be in it. Does that change your opinion? Miami33139 (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guidelines refer only to the question of whether a topic is appropriate for its own article. Content, on the other hand, is dictated by our content policies, such as verifiability and neutral point of view. Please see the subsection Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. This is not a discussion about whether or not LeetIRC should get its own article, but whether or not it is helpful for inquiring readers to be redirected to that page when searching for the term. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miami33139, the notability guideline does not apply to the actual content of an article. It only helps determine of a particular subject meets the bar for having its own standalone article.
    Per WP:NCC: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight."
    It might also help if you asked for the inclusion criteria on the comparison article's talk page...
    Inclusion criteria:
  1. The client has to exist. We have to be able to verify that the client actually exists and isn't a made-up hoax entry. This is standard practice for comparison articles.
  2. The entry has to be more than just a name and link. It takes a good bit of time to research and fill out details so this raises the bar and tends to discourage drive-by additions of someone's no-name home-brew Visual Basic based client.
  3. Only standalone clients, browser plug-in type clients, or web server or browser based Java applet type clients should normally be included.
  4. Multi-IM type clients that support other instant messaging protocols should go into the comparison article that covers Instant Messaging clients. This is for article size and maintenance reasons since many IM clients now offer basic IRC support.
  5. Clients for mobile / handheld devices go into their own comparison article. This is also for article size reasons and because mobile devices have completely different operating system requirements than normal clients.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, a number of months back I completely reworked the comparison article. While doing so I removed a large number of entries and added several others. The table rows were in complete disarray with many clients not even being listed in all of the tables. I did this as part of an overall restructure/rewrite of the tables as they were deficient in many areas.) --Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate redirect to the place on Wikipedia where it's discussed. How the namer of the product can be an inappropriate search term for it puzzles me; How changing an article to a redirect circumvents notability guidelines puzzles me, too--it's the appropriate way of dealing with something of dubious notability in order to conform to notability and deletion guidelines, as explained in WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a likely search term, and if a subject isn't notable enough to be included on its own merit, the least we can do is redirect people searching for it to a useful and helpful article we do have. It's not advertising to include a redirect to page on that subject. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see the AfD less than two months ago that led to this being redirected. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the nom intentionally subst: the {{rfd}} template when nominating this redirect for RFD [2] even though the template is explicit in its instructions not to do this. This prevented the bot from notifying the WikiProject of this RFD. I have replaced the subst markup with the correct template. [3] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other article like this that went to AFD recently ended in Keep. Deleting it without a AFD, or replacing it with a redirect which is the same thing, as people looking for it won't see the article either way, is ridiculous. Right now there is a redirect to a page that only list notable things, and if its not notable enough to have its own article, it'll probably be purged from it eventually. If you don't believe an article is notable, send it to the AFD and do things properly. As for [4] Joe Chill went to AFD with it, and 10 hours later just replaced it with a redirect, with only one other person having time to comment on it. Dream Focus 17:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of the earlier AfD for LeetIRC, while it is unique and one of only maybe 2 or 3 MS-DOS type IRC clients, there just weren't enough secondary sources to argue for it as a keep at AfD. (Joe Chill wasn't the one who redirected this page either.) I'm sure it will eventually get proper coverage in books about IRC though due to how unusual DOS-based IRC clients are (which are becoming more popular due to people wanting to play with classic software), at which time we can unredirect and expand the material that is still in the edit history. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That decision is made in the AFD, through the proper method. We can't just have people making a decision on their own, and rampaging about destroying articles on a whim. If you don't believe an article should remain, you send it to a proper AFD. Dream Focus 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • While this really isn't the place to have this discussion, don't assume that the LeetIRC stub article was carelessly redirected without due diligence and some careful consideration. Any editor is of course always free to redirect an article per WP:BRD and WP:PRESERVE, especially when there is a parent article available where more coverage is available. In this particular case, there wasn't much in the article not covered in the redirect target and the nom happened to agree. That said however, you and I likely agree that blindly redirecting or nominating software articles for AfD where the nom doesn't think they are notable and has not even attempted to source them is a serious problem. If you would like to lend a hand with the larger project related to many of these stub articles we can certainly discuss this further on the WikiProject's talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Joe Coleman (actor)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what to do with this; the Joe Coleman disambiguation page gives separate listings for Joe Coleman (painter) and Joe Coleman (actor), with different birthdates, so it is perhaps suboptimal to have one title redirect to the other.  Skomorokh  23:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Joe Coleman (actor): The actor has no incoming links and redirecting to disambig would simply create a a loop.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect and remove entry from Joe Coleman dab page (I have boldly done the latter) as it was Joe Coleman (painter) (born 1955) who appeared in Mondo New York (per his own bibliography and other sources). The IMDB page appears to be the source of the 1947 birth date. I don't know if they are simply in error or if they are conflating two people of the same name. -- ToET 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ToE. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guitar Hero: The Beatles[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget Guitar Hero: The Beatles to The Beatles: Rock Band, delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as confusing. Possible retargeting options include (a)The Beatles: Rock Band (the actual game released 3 weeks ago), (b) The Beatles: Rock Band#Promotion (includes one sentence on industry rumors of Activision's attempt to license the material), and (c) Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series#On the music industry (includes two sentences on the licensing attempt). The old, originally targeted material is here. The YouTube parody video would be a perfect target were it ever to received an article, but that seems unlikely. ToET 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Clearly no evidence this title will exists. At the time that it was suggested for deletion, a youtube video parodying the Guitar Hero-approach as if they were doing a Beatles game, entitled "Guitar Hero: the Beatles", received some but minor coverage, and thus is not really going to develop into anything encyclopedia where this redirect(s) could be used. --MASEM (t) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the first; retarget first to The Beatles: Rock Band as A) the actual name of the game is nowhere close to these, and B) The targeted sections no longer exist (nor should they). One redirect (Guitar Hero: The Beatles to The Beatles: Rock Band) should be sufficient as many people mix up the two franchises. I'd also suggest adding the correct names of the Rock Band offerings to the "See also" section of Guitar Hero.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - as confusing & misleading. Even if someone does get confused and enter Guitar Hero: The Beatles, I feel like a search page would be more elucidating than taking them to the relevant Rock Band page. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except first as confusing redirects. Like Zach425, I think it makes more sense to have a search page where the real page will popup, but if we retarget one of these per 147.70.242.54 then it will be blatantly obvious what the mistake was, and we can guarantee a reader will see it first in the list. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

German submarine U-233[edit]

The result of the discussion was - Keep & allow creation of article in place of redirect - Redirects are appropriate in cases where we don't yet have an article, and I don't think the fact these currently exist as redirects is dissuading anyone from creating the article. Since we don't yet have a volunteer willing to actually create the article, it would be negative progress to delete a useful redirect in the meantime with the hope that it would result in someone creating the article. It could take months for it to be created, and in the meantime anyone using these search terms wouldn't be directed to any info at all vs. what we currently have now. Balancing the two outcomes, I say keeping the redirects is more beneficial for the encyclopedia (until an actual article is created, which would be the best outcome assuming it would meet notability standards). VegaDark (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of these two redirects. Although the targeted section of the target article does contain pertinent information about this German U-boat, it is highly likely that a full article will be written about this German U-boat, and having a non-redlink has (or will) probably discourage that effort. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kartzuli[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that kartzuli is used in English, beyond use in various Wikipedia versions based on the original, unreferenced Wikipedia article, which is now this redirect. I can also find no reference to the "Maxin Gouhshtein" mentioned in that original article. The concept seems to be unverifiable, and is, perhaps, a hoax. I believe that the redirect should be deleted. Tim Ross (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete CSD R3 - not only was the original article a hoax, "Maxin Gouhshtein" earns the Golden Doughnut award for having zero Google hits when being searched. Clearly it's an implausible misnomer, and having been created only 16 days ago, it's recent enough to qualify for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost definite hoax. --JaGatalk 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per IP. It seems this term was once used by Borat. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Two-pass encoding[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Variable bitrate. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be a separated article or redirected to Variable bitrate. (Multi-pass encoding is mentioned in Variable bitrate#Methods of VBR encoding.) It should not be redirected to Smart Bitrate Control (SBC), because the SBC article is more specific about multi-pass encoding software tool Nandub (video processing utility).

"Two-pass encoding" (2-pass encoding) also known as "Multi-pass encoding" is a variable bitrate encoding method and it is used by many codecs and encoders. Reference: [5]. See also articles about other encoders: Dr. DivX#Multi-Pass Encoding, Cinema Craft Encoder. Multi-pass encoding is also used by XviD [6], x264 [7], libtheora (Theora) [8], etc.

"Two-pass encoding" wikilink is used only in Windows Media Encoder article. [9] 89.173.68.106 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Should be the same as for Multi-pass encoding which I just created as it is also according to the target only used in VBR recording and explained there.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Redirects from the general to the particular are generally confusing and misleading. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_29&oldid=1146692172"