June 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2012
Fictional Jimbo Wales
- 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect doesn't make sense. "Fictional Jimbo Wales" isn't even mentioned on Dinosaur Comics. Tideflat (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On the face of it, no it doesn't make sense but Fictional Jimbo Wales is apparently a (minor) character in Dinosaur Comics. It seems likely that anyone searching for this term, and the stats show that people do (although note that stats.grok.se is currently broken and showing 0 hits for every page during May 2012) will know this. An article at this title was deleted after an AfD in December 2006, speedily deleted (per WP:CSD#G4 later the same day, prod-deleted in April 2007 and then a redirect speedily was deleted (per R3, possibly incorrectly) in November 2010. As such it seems very likely that the title will be recreated again if it were deleted - something the redirect is discouraging. In the apparent absence of any content about Jimbo in popular culture (please let me know if I've no spotted something) the current target is probably the best and is definitely preferable to a editible redlink. If this is deleted then I recommend salting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Thryduulf and history-restore the four deleted versions from the invalid R3. (It was definitely an invalid R3, being far too old for speedy-deletion even then.) Rossami (talk) 00:18, 11 June 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.
Testathon
- 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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I request removal of the redirect, since I believe it is unrelated to the target page and it is misleading to suggest testathons are an Extreme Programming practice. It would be fine with me if it's turned into a new page of its own. On the other hand, people have questioned the notability of the subject on the talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article, which was made into a redirect, suggested that it was an XP practice. There were no sources cited. I have not heard the term used in Real Life, except informally. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:01, 10 June 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.
Jay Abraham
- 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 to encourage the creation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An IP wonders "Why would this link to fedex....?" There appears to be no reason for this redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally linked because he had quite a lot to do with Fedex's marketing. Jay Abraham really should have his own entry - he meets notability criteria for his two published books alone - but as he's very commercial I didn't fancy the accusations that I was somehow doing this commercially or the extra notability criteria that it would attract. JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turn into article. (Is there a verb for that?) With a cursory Google search, I can find a little on Jay Abraham. I'd say he meets the notability guideline, as there are some independent sources that cover him or his works. It should be possible to write at least a small article about him, and that's more fitting than a redirect to FedEx. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone wants to turn it into an article. As it stands now the redirect is confusing and useless. It might be better to leave it as a red link, like so many BLP's rather than one that does not provide the searcher with any information on 'Jay Abraham'.--Michaela den (talk) 11:11, 27 June 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.
- 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) 10:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Harmless. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The content was at this title for almost 6 months until less than a week ago, so it's likely that there are still incoming external links, and as it's doing no harm there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Harmless, likelihood of inbound links, no reason given to delete. "Unnecessary" is explicitly not a valid reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 11 June 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.
Kirby Corporation
- 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 both. Ruslik_Zero 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby Company sells vacuums, while Kirby Corporation is an S&P 400 shipping company. Most the links to the redirect are for the shipping company so I suggest deleting the redirect, and hope the someone will start an article. Svgalbertian (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:REDLINK. When created, the two articles should be linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect for now. I am not finding strong evidence that Kirby Corporation meets Wikipedia's generally accepted standards for inclusion. A Google-News search, for example, returns nothing relevant. WhatLinksHere shows four inbound links and granted, two of them refer to Kirby Corp but they are undifferentiated list articles which do not necessarily justify inclusion. The S&P 400 is a mid-cap list, not a subset of the more notable S&P 500. I concur that the two articles should be hatnoted if/when Kirby Corp is shown to be notable but until then, the redirect is more helpful to readers. Rossami (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the redirect. These are two separate companies. Continuing to use the incorrect ambiguous name as a redirect only perpetuates confusion. Senator2029talk 04:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Including Kirby corp with this discussion, as it should also be deleted for the same reasons we all have stated above. Senator2029talk 07:05, 2 July 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.