Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2010

International Shows[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. No reliable sources were provided that show that "International Shows" is actually used to mean Orlando (label), despite plenty of time and several requests. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sole author of the redirect mentions that "International Shows" is a name quite often used for Orlando (label). There is no reliable source available that can validate that. I suggest that unless such a source is found, this redirect be deleted as it is more or less an implausible redirect in that case. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as author. I found a reliable source, Billboard (magazine). See Talk:International Shows. The only reason to remove this redirect is possible confusion with the generic term "international shows" to refer to an world-class trade, industry, or similar show. When an article on that topic is created, it should use this name and a hatnote should be used to disambiguate. Until then, there is no reason to remove this redirect.
    Also, about 30 Dalida-related articles use the term, which was once a red-link. By having a redirect it will deter re-linking as a redlink. Of course, that can and should be fixed by creating a proper blue-link to Orlando (label) in those 30-odd articles, but that's a task for another day.
    I do stand corrected on one point - it is not "quite often" used, but even the limited usage combined with the Billboard usage is enough to warrant keeping this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment David, actually both the links you've provided talk about how Dalida (an Egyptian/Italian singer perhaps) has had international shows or how some of the best selling albums have been Dalida's international shows. These links do not warrant a redirect of the page International Shows directly to Dalida or even to the article in question. If you can show a link that specifically says or alludes to the fact that Orlando (label) was/is known specifically as "International Shows", we'll let the redirect remain for now. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 03:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some additional references which show that Dalida's label of the early 1970s has been referred to as "International Shows," "International Show," and "Orlando/International Show." I've updated Orlando (label) accordingly. It's too bad that article is in such poor shape - ideally that article would contain all of the names the label went under over the years. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry David. You've added an advertisement released by Dalida. Advertisements are not RS. And even if we give WP:SPS a lenient look, the advertisement is quite vague saying that Orlando(label)/International Shows Production by xxxxx (some company). I have to say that I keep my Delete failing an RS which mentions a term like, "Orlando (label), known as International Shows,yada yada yada...". I don't want to put you down but this is how it is. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 07:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertisements are generally not reliable. However, they are reliable when referring to themselves. In this case, the claim is that the record company referred to in Orlando (label) is referred to by other names. Obviously, if the record label refers to itself as another name in an ad, the ad is a reliable source to support the claim. It's similar to saying "A slogan of Coca Cola was 'Coke Is It' and using a Coke ad as a source. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was trying to think where I saw this before, and it was an article with text like, "International Shows are broadcasts that cross national boundaries." I prodded with the comment, "Unnecessary article on a concept too broad to be encyclopedic: shows or broadcasts of any sort that cross national boundaries. Apparently a vehicle for external links." The author agreed, but said he'd created it because he had seen a lot of internal redlinks to international shows. So it was deleted on my PROD last December 14. My point is, "international show" is a generic term to which this label and its singer appear to have absolutely no exclusive claim. We might as well have Broadcasts on television → Dancing with the Stars or Scoring touchdowns → Reggie Bush.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there seems to be some confusion here over capitalization. Yes, the term "international show" or "international shows" is generic, but the term "International Show," like "Windows" may refer to a specific entity. The claim, supported by Billboard magazine and other sources, is that International Shows is the name of the same label as is described in Orlando (label). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the label "Intenrational Shows" may be distinct from the label "Orlando"? If so, then arguably it should be an article, not a redirect (however, if it was an article, I would immediately propose a merger - even if there are two labels, they were run by the same person and had at least one major artist in common). Are you saying there is no such label "International Shows"? If so, I must have a blind spot because the way I read the Billboard and other sources, it's clear that a label by this name existed and that it signed a major artist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Noob toob[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noob_tube, this redirect should also be deleted. (Failing that, Noob tube should be recreated as a redirect the same as this one.) I42 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after some thought. Whilst this is a plausible search term, it is by nature "in-universe", referring to rocket launchers/grenade launchers in gaming. It seems very odd to direct it to a real world article which would be very unlikely to mention the redirect topic, even under "In popular culture". Seems to me it would be best to delete it. --Taelus (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shyam Sunder[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Dabified per consensus (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be targetted at National Institute of Standards and Technology#Collapse of the World Trade Center again. Shyam Sunder was the lead investigator of NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) has retargetted the redirect to Shyam, a disambiguation page, and then removed it completely after I had restored it.  Cs32en  17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Retarget, we have policy on not redirecting to disambig pages. I will be bold and make that the target now, but leave the RfD listing in-case others disagree. --Taelus (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also listed Shyam Sunder on the disambiguation page, so please undo if the result is to target the disambig page. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The section title in National Institute of Standards and Technology seems to have been changed. The correct target of the redirect should thus be National Institute of Standards and Technology#Destruction of the World Trade Center. Thanks to Taelus (talk · contribs) for spotting this, and for correcting the redirect accordingly!  Cs32en  00:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) has now retargetted the redirect to Shyam Sunder Surolia, an article that was created on January 4, 2010. There is also an (unreferenced) BLP named Shyam Sundar Chakravarthy. I therefore suggest creating a disambiguation page.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify sounds like a case for disambiguation Josh Parris 12:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Greeks in Spain[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete'. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article it links to doesn't mention Greeks anywhere; according to Greek diaspora, the Greek population in Spain is very small, so this article doesn't make much sense. Classical geographer (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned in target page. From what I have seen, it seems large numbers of these "Nationality in Country" pages were created as articles, and were then converted to redirects instead of being deleted. --Taelus (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taelus is right, the article read, "The Greek community in Spain is numbering between 3,000 and 7,000 people." The page gets around 110 hits a month, but I assume those are from people looking for information about Greeks in Spain, which they won't get at the current target. The only incoming link is from Greek diaspora, and maybe a redlink there will spur someone to create a proper article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Foxit PDF Editor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No Consensus, definately no consensus to delete, but also no consensus whether a move is suitable here. A discussion for moving would be better done at Requested Moves. Defaults to keep to allow move discussions. --Taelus (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion. The redirect makes no sense. Foxit Reader and Foxit PDF Editor are distinctly different products. Affinemesh94464 (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Foxit_Reader#Foxit_PDF_Editor, they seem to be packaged together. However, I would also support deletion as Category:PDF readers is distinct from the editing software. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (See my new !vote below: still keep, but retarget and move.) It is debatable whether information on the editor should be in the article on the reader, but as long as it is there it is reasonable to have a redirect to it, as anyone wanting information on the editor is likely to search for "Foxit_PDF_Editor". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the infomation referred to has already been marked as off-topic. The listing of other products within the article on Foxit Reader doesn't contribute enough information to be useful, and the other products mentioned probably need articles of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Affinemesh94464 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 13 January 2010
    I don't agree that these three programs are notable enough to warrant an article each. I think a better solution is to keep all three in one article and rename it to a more appropriate title, as I suggest below. The solution to there being too little information about other products is to add more information, not to delete a redirect so that what little information is there can't be found. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is misleading and discourages the creation of an article for Foxit PDF Editor.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above "delete" is from the original nominator, and so not an additional opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Foxit Software, and move Foxit Reader to Foxit Software. Since the article Foxit PDF Editor currently contains information about not only Foxit Reader but also Foxit PDF Editor and Foxit Phantom PDF Suite, this seems to be the logical thing to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Foxit Software, and move Foxit Reader to Foxit Software. James Watson's suggestion seems a sensible one to me. DrFrench (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article and discussion page is absolutely about Foxit Reader. The other products appear to have been listed there erroneously, and consisting of only a couple of lines, they contribute very little. It would be safer to keep this article essentially intact, and create one for the Foxit Corporation, if notable. The content should define an article, not the links pointing to it.Affinemesh94464 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on Foxit Reader no longer includes a lists of other products. As the redirect makes no sense, could this discussion be concluded? Affinemesh94464 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am not sure what "absolutely about Foxit PDF editor" (presumably a typo for "absolutely about Foxit PDF reader") means: it is mainly about Foxit PDF reader, but partly about other related products. As for the article no longer containing any mention of the other products, yes it does. For a while it didn't because an anonymous IP editor with no other editing history removed the information without any explanation, but I have restored it pending a conclusion to this discussion. As for the fact that the article currently contains only brief mentions of the other software, the solution to that is to add more information. I have added a little more, and more still can be added.
    Affinemesh94464 seems to be quite determined to have this redirect deleted, having posted above 5 times (including the nomination). However, I still think that (1) to simply remove all information about the reader from Wikipedia would be a loss to the encyclopedia, (2) the notability of these products is not sufficient to justify three separate articles, (3) there is currently information about Foxit PDF Editor in the article, (4) the most natural way of resolving these three points is to rename the article to recognise the fact that it covers more than its present title suggests. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for spotting the typo, "absolutely about Foxit Reader" is correct. To answer the points James raises, (1) this is a discusion about redirects and we haven't suggested removing content about Foxit Reader from WP. (2) We don't know whether the other products are notable, as they don't have articles of their own. The Foxit Corporation could be, which would be a more suitable location for a product list. (3) James is correct, the sections were blanked by an anonymous user but have now been resotred. (4) The article's history and discussion page relate to Foxit Reader. Changing the article to a different subject would break this continuity. And Foxit Reader seems sufficiently notable to deserve its own article - why destroy this?Affinemesh94464 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The redirect should point to the section of whichever article covers the topic; at present, this is Foxit Reader#Foxit PDF Editor. I am not comfortable supporting a move and re-scoping of the target article to Foxit Software without an indication that the developer itself is notable. However, if an article about Foxit Software is created (either as a separate article or by pagemove), then that would also be a valid target. –Black Falcon (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The word fuck[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect; we don't have (or need) "the word X" for every word "X" on which we have an article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2010 (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/2010_January_19&oldid=1148682728"