Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 8

July 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 8, 2009

Asymptosy
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Technically correct, but not used outside of unabridged dictionaries (and mathworld, a known source of neologisms, and the possible source of the word in unabridged dictionaries), and unlikely to be typed by accident or on purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Asymptote
 * If deleted here then please delete from Missing science topics as well. The main reason for adding the redirect was to remove some of the red ink there.--RDBury (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please speedydelete the redirect.Ms dos mode (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Information The mathworld entry mentioned in the Nom. defines it as, "Asymptotic behavior. A useful yet endangered word, found rarely outside the captivity of the Oxford English Dictionary."  The Asymptote article does not currently contain the term.  --  Thinking of England (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the interest of fairness, the Asymptote article doesn't contain the term because I removed it, considering that MathWorld entry as a singularly unreliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't believe this is a speedydelete candidate as there is some controversy here. The link was present in the Wikipedia:Missing science topics and my primary goal here was to reduce the number of items there. I'm not sure if there should be a redirect or not but there should be some discussion about it at least because the people at Mathworld seem to think it was worth a separate page. I only create redirects to resolve missing links, and then only if I can verify an independent source that the topics are related. I disagree that Mathworld is unreliable. Not that it's infallible (I have found some minor errors myself) but it's used as a reference in hundreds of math articles. Perhaps a redirect to a wiktionary entry would work better. In any case, the Missing science topic entry should be resolved somehow.--RDBury (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathworld is mostly the author's (now editor's) personal opinion, and only as reliable as its sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into an argument on the merits of MathWorld; I assume we can agree to disagree. This isn't really the place to discuss it anyway. As I said earlier, my main concern here is to resolve the broken link in the Missing science topics page. This can either be done with a redirect or by removing the link from the page. I'm not sure what process went into deciding which sources should be used for W:MST, but MathWorld is listed as one of them. Perhaps concerns as to the reliability of MathWorld should be brought up in the discussion page there.--RDBury (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those concerns have been brought up before. The math is generally correct, but the names and sometimes definitions of concepts are Eric's, rather than being used outside of Eric's inner circle.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Viz Mail
The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Absolutely pointless and useless redirect for an old service offered briefly by Viz that was not even mentioned in the article until the redirect creator shoved in a one-sentence line about it after the Redirect was tagged for CSD. It was validly deleted by an admin, but creator argued with admin that it wasn't a valid R3 CSD, so has been recreated for RfD instead. VizMail gets about 117 hits in google, the bulk of which are for an actual company called VizMail not Viz Media's short lived email system. It isn't a notable term and the redirect is misleading and, again, fruitless. No one has ever linked to it or even mentioned it in Wikipedia before. I am also nominating the matching Viz Mail redirect which has the same issues and same lack of actual normal usage or even marginal usage in relation to Viz Media. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Viz Media
 * → Viz Media
 * 1. Regarding the lack of linking to "Viz Mail" Redirects for discussion says "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect" - So a lack of incoming links cannot be used as a criterion.
 * 2. The company is Vismail, not Vizmail. If one cannot created a sourced article about the company Vismail, it may as well not exist. From my understanding the only way to use "Vizmail" is to refer to the short-lived VIZ Media e-mail system
 * 3. VIZ has offered this service and announced it in its press releases. Vizmail doesn't have enough sources to make its own article, but a redirect linking a branded service to a company's page is reasonable.
 * 4. EDIT: I must also add that the speedy deletion was not proper since the request did not fit the criteria. Speedy_deletion 3. says "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers." - And this redirect was not an implausible misnomer to a correct name, so the pages cannot be deleted as per the speedy criteria for redirects.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also referred to VizMail, as are various similar products. Vizmail isn't referred to as anything by anyone except for a handful of old press releases. Its a non-existent service and to try to claim it is related is a misnomer, a perfectly valid CSD reason. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Misnomer: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misnomer "a use of a wrong or inappropriate name b: a wrong name or inappropriate designation" - "Viz Mail" is being used as a redirect of a name of a branded service operated by a company to the company's page, not as a redirect from an implausible wrong name to a correct name. A misnomer redirect would be VizMail -> Vismail. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As for discussion on the talk page: It is common for company articles to describe services once offered that are no longer offered. I don't see why one should not mention or redirect from a name just because the service is no longer offered.
 * The dictionary quoting is there to show the other editors what a misnomer is and how it is used. This redirect is not being used to direct a user from an implausible misnomer to a proper name. You said: "Its a non-existent service and to try to claim it is related is a misnomer" - The service existed at one point, and it is related as VIZ itself offered it. I first learned about it from this archive of its website: http://web.archive.org/web/20000229061556/http://www.viz.com/ - In any event it is not being used to redirect from an implausible misnomer to a correct name of something.
 * For Google hits: Vizmail + anime gets 101 hits - And some hits show people using vizmail e-mail accounts - It may have fewer Google hits since it existed briefly around the year 2000. Many free webpages from the period which would have displayed Vizmail e-mail addresses likely died, further driving down the hits. The hits will go further down when Geocities dies.
 * Vizmail + manga gets 61 hits, with some hits the same hits as the one in the Vizmail + anime one
 * And if someone feels that this redirect shouldn't exist because a person could be looking for "Vismail," if Vismail the company has no reliable sources describing it, then there wouldn't be an article about it. So nobody should be searching for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

RJJ (disambiguation)
The result of the discussion was delete as a non-useful and misleading redirect, and implausible search term. ~ mazca  talk 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Improper redirect as that article is not a disambiguation page. It should be deleted instead. Tavix |  Talk 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Jacob Joseph
 * Delete Per Nom.  Note that RJJ also redirects to Jacob Joseph.  From the history, this dab page appears to have been created to disambiguate between the RJJ school (the current target) and the boxer Roy Jones, Jr., but it could not be determined that the latter was ever referred to as RJJ, so it was changed into a redirect.  --  Thinking of England (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no one's going to mistakenly type the word disambiguation looking for this article GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unplausible search term, and it is unhelpful to have a disambiguation page redirecting to a specific page as it may cause confusion to the reader. --Taelus (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning
The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC) After I AFD'd the article List of products that Billy Mays pitched, I pulled the then-nonexistent title List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning out of thin air to provide what I considered to be a comparison supporting my point. User:Tavix, who first wrote the Billy Mays article and voted to keep it, then created this as a redirect to a section in the Peyton Manning article. I don't believe this was done in good faith; my phrasing on my AFD statement indicated that this was a redlink, and now it's not, theoretically weakening my statement and influencing AFD voters. It's also just not a reasonable search term. Nosleep break my slumber 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → Peyton Manning
 * Strong Keep They do no harm as redirects and the only reason the nominator wants them deleted was so he can have his point proven at the AfD. It is better to keep these as redirects in case someone wants to look up what products that Peyton has endorsed over the years and therefore it is plausible as a redirect. See also: List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods. Tavix |  Talk 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM, since you're such a fan of quoting essays like they're policy. Do you honestly, deep down, believe this to be a plausible search term? And I'm not gonna post this twice. Nosleep break my slumber 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Improbable search term.  Appropriate only if the material was expanded into an independent article, but not as a redirect.  No history or discussion to retain.  Agree with Tavix that List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods (created by him at the same time as these two) should be addressed with the same brush. (Followup: It's nominated above.) -- Thinking of England (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete too long, bad precedent would be set. Abductive (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unlikely search term. --Allen3 talk 10:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan
The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) After I AFD'd the article List of products that Billy Mays pitched, I pulled the then-nonexistent title List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan out of thin air to provide what I considered to be a comparison supporting my point. User:Tavix, who first wrote the Billy Mays article and voted to keep it, then created this as a redirect to a section in the Michael Jordan article. I don't believe this was done in good faith; my phrasing on my AFD statement indicated that this was a redlink, and now it's not, theoretically weakening my statement and influencing AFD voters. It's also just not a reasonable search term. Nosleep break my slumber 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Michael Jordan
 * Strong Keep They do no harm as redirects and the only reason the nominator wants them deleted was so he can have his point proven at the AfD. It is better to keep these as redirects in case someone wants to look up what products that MJ has endorsed over the years and therefore it is plausible as a redirect. See also: List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods. Tavix |  Talk 16:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Improbable search term.  Appropriate only if the material was expanded into an independent article, but not as a redirect.  No history or discussion to retain.  Agree with Tavix that List of products endorsed by Tiger Woods (created by him at the same time as these two) should be addressed with the same brush. (Followup: It's nominated above.)-- Thinking of England (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete too long, bad precedent would be set. Abductive (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unlikely search term. --Allen3 talk 10:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

/A\ Atlantic
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus is that these are unlikely search terms. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC) These are all recent creations based on the idea that the broadcaster's "A" logo sort of looks like /A\ if you squint at it the right way. None of them is plausible for use in searching or linking, nor are they useful for any other purpose that I can determine. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * → A Atlantic
 * → CKVR-TV
 * → CKVR-TV
 * → CKVR-TV
 * → CFPL-TV
 * → CIVI-TV
 * → CHWI-TV
 * → CKNX-TV


 * Delete Per Nom. <font style="background:#000000;color:#FFFF00">KMFDM FAN (talk!) 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Can → A (TV system) (also created by AlexRampaul, but on the following day) be added here, or does it require a separate nomination?  --  Thinking of England (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup I went ahead and listed  separately. -- Thinking of England (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * |D)elete The stations' various webpages use the stylization  'A'  when representing the network's name in text, and not /A\. It appear to only be an ascii-art approximation of the logo and is not a plausible search term.  --  Thinking of England (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per 99.226.105.112 below. CTV is referring to the stations this way (such as "/A\ Barrie") in their media releases.  Ugly, although perhaps not quite as bad as Syfy. *shudder* -- Thinking of England (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. These seem highly unlikely search terms. Jafeluv (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. I don't think anyone types out what a letter "looks like" on the TV screen. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 15:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that CTV began to use new stylization as /A\ instead of  'A'  in their press materials as of June 2009.99.226.105.112 (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep /A\ is not that far off from a logical approximation. In case someone searches with that, there needs to be a redirect there. Tavix | <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;"> Talk 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's only one person on this entire planet who would ever search for that, and that person's edits to A-related articles typically have to be reverted for almost total non-compliance to anything resembling editor consensus, Wikipedia policy or coherent English. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I don't think you can speak for everyone on the planet and know what people might search for. I see 'A' and /A\ to be similar to each other and I think that other people do too. Tavix | <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;"> Talk 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. It's not how the network is referred to in any medium that actually gets read by the general public, and corporate branding preferences aren't supposed to override simple common sense on Wikipedia. This simply isn't ever actually going to get used by anybody — and Wikipedia has a standing consensus against creating either article titles or redirects out of artificial stylizations that don't actually have any bearing on the semantic content of the title. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)