Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 10

Argentine films and list
The result of the debate was move discussion to Wikipedia talk:Redirect. This needs further discussion and is unlikely to result in a consensus to delete anything in the near future - hopefully that it will get more attention on that talkpage. WjBscribe 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (Sorry for not doing this with normal formatting, but there are a LOT of redirects in this issue.)

Currently, one of our users has made a large quantity of redirects (in the thousands) for essentially every Argentine film which does not already have an article. These redirects all go to the relevant decade of List of Argentine films (see the full "What Links here" lists for each decade's list - the redirects start usually several hundred down), but I'm concerned by the huge quantity of articles being created solely to redirect to a general list. Especially as none of them have even been run by notability or verifiability standards; all that can be ascertained is an IMDb entry (and the consensus at WP:CIMDB was that IMDb is not a reliable source). I'm somewhat conflicted about mass deleting all of these redirect articles, especially as some of them certainly might one day be articles, but I am dubious that most of them will be. What thoughts do you all have about the process? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - What to do depends mostly on the the handling of the list itself. List of Argentine films and its subpages seems to list essentially every Argentine film ever made, including many items that do not have their own article or unlikely to ever be created. In such a case the redirects are of the type and helpful as they can be linked and provide at least some basic information. The problem of verifiability is than one of the list itself: Should there be an entry for a specific film and how is it sourced? But in as far the redirects correctly reflect the content of the list, they are legitimate. They could be expanded to articles on a step-by-step basis and need to be deleted if the corresponding list entry is removed. --Tikiwont 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me just add, that above is one of two ways of using a list of topics that are regularly brought up here. If, alternatively, the list was clearly confined to topics considered notable, one would rather have redlinks inside the list (ruling out redirects thereto) thus encouraging article creation. It can be pointed out that redirects obscure the lack of an actual article and might make thus article creation more difficult, while lists with excessive redlinks might invite the creation of non-notable articles, but I am not sure how important either point is in the long run: articles are being cerated not only because of redlinks and certainly over redirects. Nor would I want to endorse the list or the mass creation of redirects, just that mass deletions don't seem to be the right answer, nor do I see a valid policy reason for doing so. But maybe someone has a second opinion? --Tikiwont 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, and I tend to agree. However, being as this isn't a hypothetical, what actions would you advise be done to handle this properly and fairly? Many thanks for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 23:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if i sounded general, but i wanted to put my initial remark in context, not least because there are actually partial lists of Argentine films by decade of either type mentioned above. While I am not sure what you mean by acting "properly and fairly," it is in fact very easy to create a redirect and requires a good reason to delete one. Now that the redirects have been created (and the creator has been advised that this is not uncontroversial), I would mostly ask how the list should eventually look. If you want to keep them rather complete, than the redirects may stay per above. If a whole list gets deleted, the redirects would go as speedy candidates as well. If you opt for pruning the lists from notable entries, the corresponding redirects should be removed as well, but it might be stiil tedious to bring them all here. So basically I'd suggest to agree here that redirects to those film lists can simply be tagged as speedy candidates per R1 (missing target) if the respective entry has been removed from the list (assuming that this discussion is closed in that sense and that the tags explicitly refer to it).Tikiwont 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

comment Once again what do any of you know about this huh?? There are only about half of Argentine films listed in the lists and there was far from thousands of redirects (although it might have seemd so). Argentina and SPain have very large film industries and domanite half of world cinema in the Latin world. Eventually given time they will be all have articles. I don't intend wasting my time - I believed I was setting out a basis. Getting the wikiepdia system to recognize these films and redirecting to a brief of the cast and director of the film and year until a full article cna be created. Nothing wrong with this. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Gnooteekay → GTK+
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Was listed at AfD improperly. Nom's reason is "Zero real-world pickup for this supposed alternative name. Probably WP:MADEUP", nominator is Chris Cunningham. One comment from the AfD will be copy/pasted below. I have no opinion. UsaSatsui 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - appears on Google, but only with 77 hits at the most and no proper decription. Definately non-noteable. The article looks like an experiment too.  Lra drama 08:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (comment c/p from AfD)
 * Weak delete: the arguments offered for deletion aren't very strong (WP:NEO doesn't apply to redirects, which merely have to be potentially useful), but examining some of the Google hits, this stops well short of being a neologism or even a protologism. I would judge the assessment of WP:MADEUP to be correct, and I doubt that this is of any use to anyone, except perhaps to the creator as a tool to promote his pet coinage.  For something like GTK+, which is developed in public on the Internet, I would expect hundreds of hits if this had any currency.  Xtifr tälk 23:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ciliary glands
The result of the debate was Not applicable. RFD is not really applicable to merge requests. Nominator has merged articles. -- JLaTondre 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I suggest that Ciliary glands point toward Glands of Moll. They're the same structures. Is it necessary to make a listing on this page? Or should I just go ahead and do it? Hovea 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * If they really are the same, just do it. Though you may want to use the article Talk pages to ask the opinions of other editors which should be the primary title and which the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)