Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2012

Matt_Ramsey[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 retargeted to Matthew Ramsey. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted entirely. Obviously the legislator is not a porn star, and there is no reason to keep the article with no other information. This is also clearly frivolous. Klugerama (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, The legislator is not a porn star, but according to sourced information in his article the porn start has performed under this name. Also with this name is a recurring character in The O.C., so I've drafted a disambiguation page for the three of them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does it matter if the legislator is not a porn star? The legislator doesn't have an article, while the porn star used this name. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question here is "are any of the Matt Ramsey's the primary topic"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the well-formed disambiguation page currently at Matt Ramsey. PamD 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matthew Ramsey, another disambiguation page of a nearly identical name, once verifying that every entry is there. Matt and Matthew are similar enough names to be frequently confused, and neither page is long enough to justify them being separate. We had a similar situation recently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 28#Johnny Swanson. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Car Commercial[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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it redirect there when you can advertise a car on radio and on newspapers too? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect but change it to Advertising or Advertising campaign as i feel that covers the whole thing.
Car commercial could become an endless list of advertising and external link additions. I don't see a need for an article solely for car advertising personally as it can be covered in the articles of the cars directly or become a redirect to the above two examples. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Commercial" means either a TV or radio spot. So right there you've got two very different genres, and if you were going to discuss both these car ad media media together, you'd need to be in a broader article like Advertising, and then you'd contrast that with print. Automotive TV commercial is a potential article; there is a significant body of criticism and commentary on the way cars are advertised on TV, and there are enough conventions to make it a distinct genre. Print and radio car ads are a whole other thing with a different set of rules and traditions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept of 'car commercial' is no different to 'deodorant commercial', 'burger commercial', 'life insurance commercial' and thousands of other types of commercials. Why should this one need special treatment?  Stepho  talk  22:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the 8 articles in Category:Advertising by product suggests that the advertising methods/styles/conventions/etc for some types of products is notable, which is why I asked the question whether this was true for cars or not. The responses to the question so far suggest that there isn't universal agreement on the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either it isn't, and this redirect should be deleted due to no notability, or it is, and the redirect should be delete to encourage new articles. Either way, same result. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answering Thryduulf and partly agreeing with Ego White Tray, most of that category is for controversial advertising. In general, car advertising isn't particularly controversial, nor does it standout from other forms of advertising. As EWT said, if it's handled by a simple redirect then it ain't notable. Somebody has to say why it is notable (as opposed to just prevalent) and actually write an intelligent article.  Stepho  talk  08:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying it is notable enough, I'm asking a question - "Is there scope for an article?" not "There is scope for an article." because my very limited knowledge of the subject suggests that it might be (and equally that it might not be). My last comment was in response to your comment that implied all advertising genres are equally non-notable by pointing out they aren't. As we have good faith comments answering giving both "yes" and "no" answers to the notability question it is unarguable that it is not universally agreed to be non-notable, regardless of what the consensus is. You will also note that I have not expressed an opinion either way. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Commercial break[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 Keep all. Beyond the scope of RFD. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, those are redirecting to Television advertisement. But the act of having a break in the middle of broadcast programme to put adverts also happens in radio. Should the separate article about commercial break be created? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think a separate article is the way to go here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify per nom ; don't forget intermission breaks with concession ads in movies. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_28&oldid=1083556107"