Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 12

< November 11

November 13 >

November 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2012

Enzina Fuschini

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 Keep. There is no agreement here to change the out come of the previous AfD discussion, neither to delete the redirect nor to restore the article which would be out of RFDs remit. As for the previous talk page, it was available for consultation during the regular deletion discussion and is still in the history. Whilst not a pretty sight, I've created a regular archive. Tikiwont (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Enzina Fuschini → Gerry Rafferty#Disappearance (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. The large page dedicated to the Artist and socialite Enzina Fuschini was redirected to Gerry Rafferty. There is no reason at all to do so as the arguments related to Gerry Rafferty are just a very small part of the Enzina Fuschini Page, which relates to numerous other persons and events. Furthermore, the page has been subject to violent attacts of spammers during the last months in relation to a heritage question, which has no relevance at all to the Wikipedia page itself. I highly suspect therefore that the redirection action is part of this vandalism.

--Jpvandijk (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Far from being vandalism, the redirect was created per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzina Fuschini which determined that the subject was not notable enough for their own article. As this consensus is very recent (~3 weeks ago), overturning it here is unlikely to happen. Your best bet is to work on a sourced draft that demonstrates their notability and then get feedback on the draft before proposing to overwrite the redirect with the new content. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all I notice that you use the word "concensus". It is not clear which subjects were involved in this "consensus"; I have participated in the disucssion regarding this argument and put forward sufficient information, and I have no possibility to consult the successive events that might have followed which culminated in this so-called "consensus" (as the page with all the "Talk" and discussion cannot be accessed any more). This impossibility (not only for me but also for all other users and stakeholders) to consult makes me strongly doubt on the mechanisms that Wikipedia applies in these cases.

Secondly as I in dicated the page is redirected to Gerry Rafferty: This again provides a strong suspect on the objectivity in this specific case: Wikipedia now suggests that a page related to Enzina Fuschini exists but only in relation to Gerry Rafferty, denying all other information that was inserted in the page relative to the person. This is, and I use an understatement, highly offensive with respect to my work as an editor.

For the above reasons I would strongly suggest that Wikipedia in the veste of the Editors involved in this redirection provides an explanation and applies necessary corrections first of all by putting the relative discussion page at disposal of all users. --Jpvandijk (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A few comments on the discussion page: The discussion started on the 13th of October and ended on the 22nd of October; Well well, 9 days and a discussion with 6 brief comments on the article, all of them again just referring to the link with Gerry Rafferty (is the English Wikipedia really that limited?), which does furthermore not at all refer to the long discussion that was inserted on the Talk page of the Article. this cannot be serious let's be honoust. Oh and by the way Wikipedia suggests not to modify that discussion any more.... --Jpvandijk (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find sources that are actually about Fuschini and write an article about that, feel free to replace the redirect with that. When I mean sources about Fuschini, I mean not a source that merely mentions her existence, but one that actually discusses her as the topic of the article. It's perfectly fine to write an article to replace the redirect as long as you address why it was deleted in the first place. As far as the redirect, Wikipedians widely agreed on the above discussed discussion to have a redirect - even if they didn't, there still isn't any reason to delete it. Since we don't have an article on her, the redirect is the logical place to point the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

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.