Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2016.

Mercury Filmworks[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a cursory googling, the company is an animation studio that works on multiple shows, not just Mickey Mouse. Trivialist (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2016 (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.

Simulsat 5[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. Deryck C. 16:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, because neither needed nor mentioned in target article. Simulsat 5 is a commercial trademark. Antennenbau (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reasoning does not meet any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria -- samtar talk or stalk 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there is a link to simulsat.com there is nothing about Simulsat 5 in particular. If we don't know anything about it we should say so, that's WP:REDLINK whether in RfD's strict criteria or not (WP:RFD#D2 covers it as "confusing" when it is not mentioned at the target, by the general consensus here at RfD.) We do not have Simulsat 1, Simulsat 2, Simulsat 3 or Simulsat 4 nor Simulsat I, Simulsat II, Simulsat III nor Simulsat IV. This just ends up being a WP:SURPRISE that a reader clicking through thinks we have some information on it and finds we don't. We don't have to stick by the strict letter of the law; for if not, we would have no need of law courts, it is a matter of what makes sense in equity (law), in the bargain that editors give to readers. Plenty o' reasons to delete this one, just because one was not explicitly stated by the nominator doesn't mean there aren't any. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crossref to #Simulsat 7 below. I am technically just cleaning up a bit of mess because there were lots of please insert below this line but that does not affect anyone's pros and cons. I think it is too late to combine now but the argument is essentially the same at both and maybe could be combined, I am not going to call that one. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For if not I am quite free to add a WP:RFD#D11 Simulsat. There is nothing stopping me doing that just so I could evade "the rules". WP:IAR applies, the RFD criteria both for keep and for delete are intended to be interpreted with common sense. Si Trew (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominating editor is saying that this is a WP:COPYVIO I do not think merely mentioning the name of a commercial product is a trademark or copyright violation (and I understand the distinctition between the two). There is a paradox in trademarks in that a commercial company wishes to make their product so well known that their names become Household Words as (Charles Dickens ' neologism I think) like aspirin or hoover (in the UK as a vacuum cleaner, brilliant word very onomatopoaeic) or aspirin, a genericized trademark. There is nothing that Wikipedia can do about that, that's real life.
My favourite at the moment which I hear endlessly on some promo channel at four in the morning when I forget to turn the bairdy off is that for a product called "No-No" which is some face remover cream. The fact that in British English a "No-No" essentially means a taboo makes it oh every time I hear it I think why did they ever call it that but it is what I believe the advertising people call "sticky" that even if an awful name for something it immedately makes you remember it as it has just done for me. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um I meant hair removal device. I could do with a face remover cream
As a beauty I am not a star
There are others more pretty by far
But my face, I don't mind it
Because I'm behind it
The ones at the front get the jar
Old music hall/vaudeville song dunno who ever sung or wrote it. Possibly the great Marie Lloyd (singing not writing) who by all accounts was a beauty. nIn Back in the Jug Agane as any fule kno but although the authors have a deliberate habit like Nigel Molesworth their protagonist of getting things wrong they do not actually get them that wrong, they are quite faithful just a little to one side. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my amazement this appears to be in a 1943 edition of Thee Rotarian [1] and was hoping it was an original little tidbit there. I can't see it all because I assmue this is a parody (and a very good one) but my gbooks will not give me the bit where it says it is there and I put the whole search in. So if nothing else we can date that bit of doggerel as "early" as 1943. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do not think it is a parody. This is real isn't it. I have seen other excellent ones drawn and typeset in similar style I have one on my bookshelf taking the michael out of that kind of magayine of the forties in America but I think this is real isn't it? I shall apply to George S. May of 2000 North Shore Ave., Chicago to buy more war bonds. They have offices in all principal cities. I would have the ad on the last page framed and posted on my wall genunely I think that is a lovely bit of poster art. I assumed it was a parody because I have seen many good ones before but I think this is genuine publication isn't is? I don't know why Google sent me there. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See my comments below. Could cause confusion, as no information on 5 is located at the article. ~ RobTalk 15:06, 23 May 2016 (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.

Pressure (film)[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 move Pressure (1976 film) to this location. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect shouldn't point to a disambiguation page. If the article doesn't exist, the redirect is worthless. RexxS (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2016 (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.

Cape Coral Daily Breeze[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Coral Daily Breeze has nothing to do with the Daily Breeze article it is redirected to. While there is not currently an article on the Cape Coral newspaper, this redirect for users looking for that paper takes them to an unrelated topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned in target article or even Cape Coral, so have to question its Wikipedia-level notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:39, 15 May 2016 (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.

Hebron shooter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 25#Hebron shooter

Simulsat 7[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 25#Simulsat 7

Simulsat C/Ku[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. Consensus has been reached. Deryck C. 16:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, because neither needed nor mentioned in target article. Simulsat C/Ku is a commercial trademark. Antennenbau (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reasoning does not meet any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria -- samtar talk or stalk 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck per below comment by BU Rob13 - my mistake! -- samtar talk or stalk 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could cause confusion because the target article doesn't mention the redirect name, which is criteria #2 at WP:R#DELETE. ~ RobTalk 05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as @BU Rob13: says and I have explained or rather laboured the point up at #Simulsat 5. I think we can safely combine these three but would not be 100% on it and would like BU Rob 13's consent before we do. I doubt there would be an objection there was just some technical fiddle that has nothing to do with the nominator's quite proper nomination but things went in the wrong place with comments below the line that should be above it, don't know how that happened, I am not going to call whether to combine or not. (Of course remove my just purely "heads up" waffle if we do) Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection, but I also don't really see the point. I did miss the #5 discussion, and I'll comment on that as well. ~ RobTalk 15:05, 23 May 2016 (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/2016_May_14&oldid=1088109139"