Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 4

October 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2009

interestingness
The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * → Flickr (links to redirect)

This redirect is an ad for Flickr, and should be deleted. TV4Fun (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC) A lucid account of how "Interestingness" works would be useful and appropriate to a resource such as Wikipedia. As a flickr user, I find that the algorithm seems to work very well. However, it would be useful to know - for example - what interesting content might be being excluded. The general issue of how web based content is indexed, searched for, and found, is of profound general interest. Although the word "Interestingness" is obviously and immediately understandable, it is not really natural English, and clearly not intended to be mistaken to be so.--Dominicos (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as the term is mentioned in the target (the explanation should be more thoroughly explained, however); the application for a U. S. patent involving the term is cited there as well. B.Wind (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that mentioning the word once in an article should be sufficient grounds for having a redirect to it. Nor is Flickr applying for a patent that has something to do with interestingness. Interestingness is a very common word and a concept that Flickr hardly has the monopoly on. There are plenty of articles (such as this one) that discuss and link interestingness that have absolutely nothing to do with Flickr. By redirecting such a common term to a company's article, it looks very much like you're just trying to promote the company with something only peripherally related to them. TV4Fun (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally a single isolated mention would be insufficient, but the term is trademarked by Flickr, if I'm reading this correctly, and it is getting coverage in reliable sources independent of Flickr, not the least being the United States Patent Office. Of course, the premise can be destroyed if there were "common usage" of the coined word prior to the use by Flickr, and that usage can be demonstrated in reliable sources. But then again, that would also be a basis for fighting the trademark and patent.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)