Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2013.

Christopher Hume

[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest deletion. Is Hume notable? Possibly, in which case this redirect is deceptive. If he is not notable, then there should be no link at all, no redirect. If he is notable, of what value is a redirection to his current employer? He could quit, be fired. It fools editors who might create a stub about him into thinking he is already covered. If he is notable it would be better to leave this a red-link, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is mentioned at the target. People can just build an article from the redirect, so I fail to see your point. Beerest355 Talk 17:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WhatLinksHere/Christopher_Hume points to four articles. Two of those articles wikilink to both Hume and the Toronto Star in close proximity. This is deceptive because when readers who see a link to Hume himself, they should be able to expect it will take them to an article about Hume -- not to the article on the Toronto Star -- which they might already have visited.
    1. In 10 Dundas East we see "Toronto Star architecture critic Christopher Hume wrote ..."
    2. In Peter Clewes we see "Christopher Hume is one of his strongest advocates. Hume, the architecture critic for the Toronto Star" Geo Swan (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The nomination seems to sit on the fence with regard to the central issue of notability rather than advance an argument for deletion. I'm inclined to come down on the probably-not-notable side: there are lots of Google and Google News hits but most if not all are for articles he's written rather than independent sources mentioning him. I fail to see how the redirect is "deceptive" or why his not being notable should be a cause for deletion – redirects aren't required to be notable and redirects like these can discourage the creation of articles on non-notable topics. ("Weak keep" because it's possible he might satisfy WP:CREATIVE in a way I've missed.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hume probably is notable. He is highly respected here in Toronto, is invited to be on blue ribbon panels, and to give public lectures. I attended one. Personally I found him somewhat pompous, but he is respected. As a notable person it is better to have a redlink than a redirect which isn't a helpful redirect. Below you see links to lectures he gave, as far away as SFU, books where he was invited to write an introduction, articles where other commentators singled him out for praise or criticism. Columnists who are quoted and commented upon won't be notable. Columnists who have a visibility well beyond the publication they write for probably are. Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phillip Preville (2007-04-20). "Let's all hate Christopher Hume". Toronto Life. Retrieved 2013-08-05. The film's talking-head highlight, for me, is the Star's Christopher Hume, who gets treated with kid gloves in the film despite being so blissfully blind to his own arrogance that he might as well be wearing Mr. Toronto's eyepatch.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Christopher Hume (2008-06-05). "Toronto Reflections: How Toronto Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Vancouver, with Christopher Hume, Architectural and Urban Critic June 05, 2008". Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Retrieved 2013-08-05.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Kevin Plummer (2009-09-12). "Historicist: Anonymous Players on the Stage of History". The Torontoist. Retrieved 2013-08-05. Christopher Hume writes in the introduction to William James' Toronto Views (James Lorimer & Company Ltd, Publishers, 1999), but "[t]he city was their only common denominator. It was what brought them—and James—together. It was also what kept them apart."{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Eric Ross Arthur (1986). "Toronto, No Mean City". University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9780802065872. Retrieved 2013-08-05. Introduction by Christopher Hume{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • "Heritage Toronto Launches Building Storeys Photography Exhibit". Urban Toronto. May 4, 2012. Retrieved 2013-08-05. Opening remarks by Heritage Toronto's executive director, Karen Carter, emphasized the role that such an exhibition has in highlighting the unique opportunities that arise when we use artistic methods to express built heritage. Co-curator and well known architectural critic, Christopher Hume, was on hand as well, remarking on the growing struggle we here in Toronto face with transportation and praising the exhibit's potential in drawing attention to the long history of transportation architecture within Toronto.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Derek Flack (2011-05-20). "The five ugliest Toronto buildings of the last 10 years". Blog TO. Retrieved 2013-08-05. So Christopher Hume has now finished his list of Toronto's worst buildings constructed in the 21st century, and I suspect his choices are bound to be more controversial than those that made the top five list. In fairness, it's a more difficult task to choose the downright ugly buildings during this period — not because so many recent buildings could be called beautiful, but because there's an increasingly large stable of mediocre residential and commercial developments in this city.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Keep until the redirect is BOLDly overwritten with an article. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (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.

Roller gun

[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. The redirect appears to be a likely search term. Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This title was previously an article deleted at AfD. While the option to redirect came up during the discussion, it was still closed as delete. The redirect isn't very helpful, since it's not mentioned on the target page. BDD (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, those views are from when Roller gun was an article, and at least some of those views are because the article was at AfD. --BDD (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was put up July 23. The article has put up consistent 10-30 views per day since its creation. Does stats.grok.se show views of uncreated pages? In any case, I doubt those views were intentional, since the article was about an obscure, likely made up classification of weapons. Ansh666 03:42, 3 August 2013 (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.

Developmental delay

[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect desperately needs a better target. Where to target? Or do we need an article? Ego White Tray (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. It's previous target from five years ago was not synonymous with this term, so it was retargeted to its present article. And of all the articles I read on developmental disorders, this present target is the one that mentions the term "delay", specifically. It is a term that targets childhood disorders that may or may not lead to trouble in adulthood. Works for me. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:00, 4 August 2013 (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.

ClueBot

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous target no longer exists, see no reason at all why Cluebot requires a mainspace redirect Jac16888 Talk 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hear you and understand your concern. All I said is that there are many shortcuts "from mainspace", not just from mainspace to userspace. There are 632 "P:" mainspace shortcuts to portalspace alone. As for printworthiness, no mainspace shortcuts are suitable for a printed version of Wikipedia and should be thusly categorized. Shortcuts, to include these mainspace ones, are there for a reason – they were created for a reason – and should be kept and made available to contributors per SNOW in the same manner now as in the past. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically, the existence of mainspace>portal redirects is irrelevant, as is whether or not it is printed, and your argument is that it was made for a reason and therefore should be kept, without any comment on what that reason was or it's validity?--Jac16888 Talk 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Basically, the nom's rationale opened up whether or not a cross-namespace shortcut is "appropriate". My argument is relevant because it gives hundreds, perhaps thousands of reasons why this shortcut is appropriate. As for a basic lesson in why contributors create shortcuts and their validity, you may read about it here.
Irrelevancy does find a place in the nom's rationale's beginning, "Even if Cluebot were notable,..." Cluebot does not have to be notable because it is not an article in mainspace, it is a bot in userspace. This shortcut was created for the convenience of editors, which is why any shortcut is created. Isn't there validity in that? Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 20:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now it is you who makes no sense. Redirects, even those shortcut redirects in mainspace, are not required to be notable. There are plenty of mainspace shortcuts to other namespaces, which makes this shortcut quite appropriate. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Mybad – I called the first delete rationale the nom's rationale. Your nominating rationale, that you could see no reason, is hopefully answered by the fact that this is a shortcut and exists for the convenience of editors. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point completely missed. "does find a place in the nom's rationale's beginning, "Even if Cluebot were notable,...""... that was not the nomination. Cluebot is not notable, and as such does not have an article, and as such should not be redirected to. We do not have redirects for human editors from the mainspace, even those with hundreds of thousands of edits, this is no different to that--Jac16888 Talk 21:10, 5 August 2013 (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.

Template:Superceded

[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 retarget to {{Superseded}}. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Obsolete}} and minimal usage of this name. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2013 (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.

Aaron Jack

[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 wrong forum. Discussion is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Jack. Non admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaron Jack: This page is not being maintained, has broken links and the subject is no longer in elective office. BuffaloBob (talk)
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/2013_August_2&oldid=1136083339"