Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.mov


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was redirect to QuickTime. Redirects are cheap and easy. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

.mov
 No vote . This was prodded on suspicion of a hoax, and it's difficult to find something in Google for this search term, for obvious reasons, but I did notice squatters on domains like dotmov.com and dotmov.org, which makes me doubtful. Can anyone confirm? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete  - does exist as a proposal, but I doubt that gives it enough notability for its own article. Yomangani talk 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - that proposal was from 1995, and it looks like no action has been taken since then on that and 50 or so other proposed TLDs, plus the article violates WP:V with the "A classified hollywood source" claim. Yomangani talk 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Action has been taken. Simon Higgs renewed the application in 2000. Uncle G 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, this is Simon Higgs. Uncle G 14:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this even possible? Wouldn't this be like using .mp3 as a TLD?  Wouldn't the browser attempt to play .mov pages as movie files?  If this is a real proposal, it doesn't seem like a very good one... -Elmer Clark 02:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Domains and file names are entirely separate things. Valrith 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand now, someone explained on my talk page. Of course, that was just my curiosity, and has little bearing on the discussion :) -Elmer Clark 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No verifiability via reliable sources. Valrith 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect to QuickTime. No evidence that such a TLD would exist. -- Kinu t /c  02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete(edit conflict) I can't find any indication there's going to be a .mov TLD anytime soon. A defunct eleven year proposal is of questionable notability.-- danntm T C 02:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to QuickTime, no reason to lose a useful redirect because someone replaced it with a crappy article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy revert to redirect. A quick check of the article's history would have revealed that this should have been done rather than AfD. NTK 03:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We can always recreate the redirect once this is deleted. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect per above. J I P  | Talk 06:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, and reading the article that the film industry wants to get their own "place on the net" just as TV has.? That's because .tv was sold by Tuvalu as a domain for anyone esp. the TV industry, not because it was assigned that way. Nate 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to QuickTime —Jared Hunt September 21, 2006, 06:53 (UTC)
 * Redirect 82.55.199.200 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Quicktime per WP:NOT Crystal Ball. Mitaphane talk 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect as above; failing that, delete and recreate as a redirect to QuickTime. And incorrect article too, .tv is not TV, nor is .fm FM radio, any more than .coop is for sole use of communal chicken farming. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect as stated above. Even if we do decide to keep the present article (which looks unlikely) I think .mov should be a disambig page with links to both quicktime and .mov (domain) or something like that. Cool3 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Quicktime article like suggested above. Yamaguchi先生 23:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Until someone can find a reliable source for this, then it serves no purpose. Spartacusprime 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Quicktime article and protect from modification. RFerreira 22:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.