Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2017.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a business listing

[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. The discussion arose from disputes surrounding some editors' use of this recently created project-space redirect in discussions. Some were concerned that this redirect mis-characterises the policy it links to, in order to further their own editorial agenda. In general, editors in this discussion agreed that the crux of this discussion is about whether or not "Wikipedia is not a business listing" is an appropriate summary of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory. However, there is disagreement as to whether "business listing" is implied by the policy. There's no consensus and a slight majority for deletion. Since this is a relatively new redirect, I'm defaulting to delete. Deryck C. 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect should be deleted as there is no such policy at the target, so the redirect confuses by implying that such a policy exists. 

At the target, the words "business" and "list" appear together twice:

  • "Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings."
  • "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances..." Unscintillating (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as there's no policy-based nomination here and "business listing" is in fact business directory, and such consensus has been used at AfD, thus a sensible target. Thid adds to the current numerous redirects for that policy section. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: That was the wrong venue for discussing this particular redirect. You could have opened a discussion on the talk page of this redirect, but I don't see you doing that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is claiming that the redirect should be deleted as it claims something to be a policy when it is not. However the redirect does no such thing - the target notes the policy that business listings are not encyclopaedic. A nomination of WP:NOTDIRECTORY would be exactly the same thing - trying to remove something as policy by deleting a redirect to it rather than discussing the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  WP:R#DELETE #2 is "The redirect might cause confusion."  At WP:Miscellany for deletion, a statement there says that deletion is appropriately based on being "consistent with policy".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target does not cover "business listings". -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory points 3, 4, 5 and/or 7 depending what you mean by "business listings". Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • All of those examples are something different than a "business listing". -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not for any definition of "business listing" I've ever encountered. It could mean:
          • A listing of businesses. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 3: "The White or Yellow Pages". The Yellow pages is exactly a listing of businesses.
          • A listing of customers or clients of a business. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 3, point 4: "Directories, directory entries, [...] or a resource for conducting business." or point 7: "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions."
          • A listing of a business's products, services or works. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 4, 5: "Sales catalogues" or 7.
          • A listing of a business's employees. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 7.
          • An individual listing for a business in a list of businesses. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY point 3, 4 or 7, and WP:NOTADVERTISING.
          You can argue that a given article is or is not a business listing, but that does not change the fact that Wikipedia is not for business listings and that this redirect points to where it is explained that Wikipedia is not for business listing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is really splitting hairs - a Yellow Pages is a directory of businesses with information about that business (phone number, website, address). The linked article is a directory of businesses with (in many cases) information about that business (a link to their article). The key point is that simple listings of businesses are not encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While "business listing" may not be explicitly listed at NOT, the intent of "we don't include business listings" is outlined by the key points of the target section. Policy is not law, its not meant to be exact language. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect should be let go pending a discussion on WT:NOT seeking an explicit change to the policy to rule out listings of non-notable businesses - a proposal I would probably support. But trying to shift the interpretation of policy by means of creating an incoming redirect whose title does not unambiguously reflect the policy, so as to link to it in deletion discussions as here and elsewhere, seems to be a rather disingenuous plan: Noyster (talk), 15:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, but we do allow businesses to have pages (duh). ST has decided to crusade against anything that is even remotely promotional by linking in various ways to WP:NOTDIR, but the simple fact is that most promotional drafts don't actually violate WP:NOT. Sure, they violate WP:NPOV and could be G11'd as promotion, but there is nothing saying a person can't attempt to write about a business (even if it is their own company). Primefac (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that using the phrase "Wikipedia is not a business listing" to decline drafts or delete articles is not acceptable (as has been demonstrated plenty of times in this discussion). We have business pages, and we have listings of businesses, all properly neutral and sourced (meeting NPOV and GNG), and NOT doesn't mention the phrase "business listing" so (as mentioned) using a vague phrase that isn't actually in the policies to state disapproval of a page isn't a good idea. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the use of something is not acceptable, then argue against the use. BLP is often misused to remove well sourced noteworthy content - we don't delete the redirect or the policy itself. Wikipedia:NOTTVGUIDE exists as a valid redirect despite there being no mention in the NOT page. It doesn't need to have a mention as long as it follows the spirit of the policy. The essential thing to consider is "Is Wikipedia a business listing"? I don't think so. (The is a difference between an encyclopaedia and a business listing). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete List of computer hardware manufacturers, List of newspapers in Venezuela, etc are all arguably, listings of businesses, while I am inclined to !vote "delete" on the AfD nominated by Thryduulf, for I am not convinced by any of the "keep" arguments. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it was created recently by someone who keeps arguing at AFDs that meeting the WP:GNG doesn't matter, because WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing. He created a redirect just to link to it for these misleading arguments. If a business passes the notability guidelines, it shouldn't be deleted simply because someone doesn't think businesses should get articles. Dream Focus 00:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here because I've seen a problematic number of AfDs where SwisterTwister !votes to delete an article (based on a reasoning of "Promotional") but the topic meets GNG (often the article is awful and needs severe copyediting and rewriting). The logic used is based on an incorrect interpretation of policy where SwisterTwister argues that WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG. This needs to stop. This redirect is now starting to pop up as a "reason" to delete articles on notable topics. SwisterTwister makes zero attempts to "fix" articles by removing obvious promotional content or look for sources. An editor active at AfD also has a responsibility to "fix" articles and search for sources. -- HighKing++ 11:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All these votes are either WP:NPA or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it's not policy at all, so it carries no weight. I started this redirect because it follows WP:Wikipedia is not a business webhost and it applies, consensus at AfD has shown it as it is. I started the redirect, because we never accept articles solely by "We let companies start their own articles". As it is, WP:NOT explicitly exists to not allow anyone to advertise their company, and that's why we use it. As mentioned above, there's never any specific wording explicit to our policies because we choose our own outcomes, exactly like XfDs, "An editor active at AfD also has a responsibility to "fix" articles and search for sources." is not applicable when WP:NOT still applies. As it is, the nomination never had a policy-backed basis. For example, the word "phone listing" exists exactly because that's what it is, or a YellowPages listing; no one could compare this to a vague one, because it's still what WP:What Wikipedia is not means, which is our policy. As it is, this has been used at AfC and understood, thus like anything, we establish our own consensus. This is also an already used alternative to WP:Not a directory. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Let me just quote what you posted at an AfD where you'd earlier used this redirect as part of your reasoning:
"You want to delete an article when it meets WP:GNG and WP:RS?" Yes, because it still violates WP:NOT as my full analysis earlier showed. .... SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have seen you use this logic on a number of AfDs and it is plain wrong. As was hammered into me when I started editting on WP, if you're not prepared to clean up an article, don't AfD it. Yet you're happy to delete articles that meet GNG on the basis of other policies such as WP:NOT - that is a gross misinterpretation of core policies. This redirect only propagates this misinterpretation and lends undue weight to one part of an overall policy which governs the *quality of content* and not the existence of an article on a GNG topic. -- HighKing++ 12:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The phrase itself "Wikipedia is not a business listing" is vague and overgeneral in its wording, does not provide any specificity, and could theoretically pertain to any company-related article on Wikipedia, even highly developed ones; e.g. "Delete IBM: It's a business listing". WP:NOTDIR does have a section stating "Simple listings", but the term "business listing" is not present. Discussion and a consensus for what would comprise a "business listing", and also for what would not, would be necessary for this to be a viable redirect, in my opinion. The redirect comes across as a synthesis of WP:NOTDIR per the subjective opinion of the redirect's creator, and interjects unnecessary ambiguity in processes that are best left plainly stated and clear. North America1000 03:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the phrase " Wikipedia is not a business listing" is an exact reference to the policy that justifies the abbreviation. To be sure, WP is not a directory of other things as well, but that doesn't invalidate this one.It is basic policy and those who think otherwise need to reread WP:NOT, We do indeed "articles" that amount only to a business listing, usually by speedy, and if there is argument that it is more than just a listing, at AfD. The question at AfD is not whether we have business listings, but whether or not the article in question falls into this deletion criterion. That is a question about which there have been thousands of disagreements on individual articles, but not in the 9 years I have been here has anyone contended in AfD that we should include business listings. What falls into that category is determined by discussion, and some of the people objecting to this have themselves participated in hundreds of such discussions.. We do of course have lists of notable businesses, but that's a different meaning, as we only include ones with WP articles in such lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
The redirect is used for those who don't know the difference between notable businesses and other businesses. If they pass the WP:GNG they are notable. We need clarification, not added confusion. Many who see the redirect with that name might believe it without clicking on it and reading what is actually said. Dream Focus 18:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this redirect is that the meaning of "business listing" is far from clear. As even the advocate of "speedy keep" has admitted above on this page, the phrase "business listing" can be interpreted in at least five different ways. Up to now the redirect has been deployed repeatedly in arguments to delete or decline draft articles about individual businesses. But here we find this same advocate linking the phrase to a list of businesses in a city: a list that we have decided overwhelmingly to keep. No, arguments for deletion should link directly to policy, not via a phrase with multiple meanings that, as many have argued here, does not clearly reflect what the policy says. I still maintain that we need to delete this misleading redirect: Noyster (talk), 10:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that the AfD has been closed as keep, and based on the opinions presented it could not have been reasonably closed any other way. However I still do not see how those keep rationales are consistent with policy for the reasons I have repeatedly cited. The policy is that we do not allow business listings, but it was decided that that was not a business listing - wrongly in my opinion, but clearly consensus was against me. That does not altar that business listings go against WP:NOT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is too broad and open-ended, and as I've stated above, its ambiguity can literally apply to any company-related article or draft on Wikipedia, regardless of the actual content within the article or draft. North America1000 11:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • HighKing, you have stated several times that "WP:NOT does not trump WP:GNG". You're simply wrong, it's the other way around. --WP:NOT is policy WP:GNG is one part of WP:N, a guideline. See WP:POLICY for the difference. DGG ( talk ) 10:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and its my fault for being inexact. What I should have said is that WP:NOT is *not* a reason to delete a topic that otherwise passes notability criteria. The correct solution is to *fix* the article, not to delete it. -- HighKing++ 19:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Server 2008 and others

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Server 2008 and others

希望

[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, default to disambiguate as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This just means "hope" and most likely would not be a search term for the current target because it is a PTM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Virtual transmission

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual transmission was created by a banned user years ago. Implausible redirect term. Not mentioned in the target article. MidAtlanticRidgeback (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME Plus!

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in target article: The redirect title refers to a modified bootleg version of the Dance Dance Revolution Extreme arcade game, which is apparently not covered in sources that are sufficiently reliable. I came across this redirect by noticing that the RCAT used was somewhat questionable, and on further investigation, I realized the redirect is better off not existing at all. SoledadKabocha (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(As the creator of the redirect seems to be an IP, I am manually pinging the (unblocked) registered users who edited it: @AeronPeryton:, @Netoholic: --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Database error

[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 for now. A new project page can be created to summarise relevant technical information as appropriate. Deryck C. 14:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine there's probably a page or section in either the "Wikipedia:" or "Help:" namespace this would be better redirecting instead, but I'm not sure where that would be at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Database download)

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the stray ")". Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BRV

[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary mislead redirect. ApprenticeFan work 14:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cultural exchange

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Cultural exchange

@POTUS

[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 President of the United States. -- Tavix (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Boldy relisting this following the previous discussion, for this was boldly retargeted by User:Olidog I have started an article at Draft:@POTUS, feel free to help out, but unsure if the title is appropriate, will notify the Trump WikiProject. They should automatically be notified of the RfD due to the change of the redirect's target and the article alerts bot.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that article whitehouse.gov is no longer limited in scope to just the President's (or White House's) website, perhaps it should be moved to Presidents of the United States on social media with redirect?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a good idea. The article is about a website that existed long before social media evolved and is also independent from social media platforms. - Eureka Lott 01:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I believed "whitehouse.gov ... outlines the President's social media websites" by AngusWOOF above to include webpages on Twitter and other social media; upon review, that article does not, in fact, include them. Draft:Presidents of the United States on social media, anyone?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on which organization manages the social media: the twitters, facebooks, youtube channels and so forth. At least from that article, it appeared the whitehouse.gov group presented the structure on how they did it, but If whitehouse.gov should focus strictly on the website itself and the history and creation of related websites, then it's okay to have a President of the United States in social media article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Search engine test

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly misleading WP:XNR if readers are attempting to locate an article about the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Danotable

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though these redirects are about 6 years old, I really do not see how they are plausible search terms for their target. They both have 0 page views in the past 90 days. Steel1943 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

DILLIGAD

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#DILLIGAD

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_22&oldid=1143883571"