Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 15

February 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 15, 2008

Gill Sans Schoolbook → Gill Sans
 The result of the debate was keep. Redirects for discussion - The redirect is useful and relevant to the article to which it points. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely meaningless redirect, not explained in article, created by an IP... what's this all about? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It a version of the famous font Gill Sans, and the main article should simply be expanded to cover it. DGG (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be patronising with the word "famous", I can read rather well, as it happens. If you think the article should be expanded, off you go, finding a source first. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you did ask what it was all about, Porcupine! Information is easily found about it. DGG was politely suggesting that the article should be expanded to cover it to solve this RfD. Seems perfectly valid to have the redirect to me, should anybody, like (apparently) you, not know what the font refers to and looks it up on Wikipedia! Stephenb (Talk) 19:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ITSSOURCED → Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
 The result of the debate was delete. Redirects for discussion - The redirect is broken and there is no other place to which it can appropriately be redirected. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect points to a section in the ATA essay which was up three days in September 2007, until it was removed. Arguments that an article is sourced has root in the notability guideline, and verifiability policy, hence such arguments are considered valid at least as often as they are invalid. Since the essay has nothing to suggest that "It's sourced" is a bad way to argue, redirecting there might cause confusion. I suggest either deletion, or retargeting to the User:Duja/It's sourced userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * user page: Redirect to user page, which is the intended target as far as content goes. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment: The closest things I found in WP:ATA were: just citing policy without being specific (WP:VAGUEWAVE), and claiming a number substituted for a careful examination (WP:BIG). The essay on the user page User:Duja/It's sourced is suggesting that number of sources is not enough to decide on WP:RS and that more careful examination is needed, so the argument does seem relevant to WP:ATA.  However, the argument is quite simply not on the page the redirect currently points to!  I agree the current situation can cause confusion.  In particular, the current situation might suggest that a longer comment containing the phrase "It's sourced" might not be valid, when as you say, it is.  Without changing WP:ATA to contain a relevant "keep: this article has 400 sources ~ " fallacy, the only sane thing is to redirect to the user page copy of the essay. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Land of the loops → Paul Thomas Anderson
 The result of the debate was delete. Redirects for discussion - The redirect makes no sense. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This redirect makes not sense whatsoever. The recording artist Land of the Loops is not mentioned in the article about Paul Thomas Anderson. I think this either intentional vandalism or some kind of mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.73.171 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Yes, this really makes no sense. Darkspots (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)