Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 13

October 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 13, 2010

Lights



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Light (disambiguation) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There is a musician by the name of Lights and having a page with that name and just re-directing it to light is just stupid. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT  (Talk)  23:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is fine; I don't see the musician as the prime use of this term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - at the risk of sounding unnecessarily direct: nominator is clearly not getting that the community has rejected this idea already. Sometimes no is no; if you believe a decision was improper, there is dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I must apologize. I had not realized that those actually went through. I was under the impression they didn't work out. And I wasn't even aware a previous decision happened, since nobody had told me. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several people have already opposed the move, and there are many other uses of the word "lights". I don't believe the musician is the primary topic. Anemone  Projectors  23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - also see Articles for deletion/Lights. The page should now be fully protected. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Lights (musician) - I understand what you guys are saying. But the fact is that all the re-direct does is redirect to a disambiguation on light. And with as there is a musician with the name Lights, I don't find the re-direct to the disambiguation needed. It's not a separate article or really of much use. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is also Lights (offal), Lights (song), Lights (Archive album), Lights (Brigade album), Lights (Ellie Goulding album), Lights (cigarette type), and Lights (EP)... Anemone  Projectors  00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, as true as that is, Britney redirects to Britney Spears, and just has a other uses tag at the top of it, which I put on the Lights' page. A musician is much more notable than a song and/or album. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT   (Talk)  00:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we're gonna have to fix Britney too then. I'll be going through RM shortly. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is extremely not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of that title. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's indeed many other uses for "lights", I don't think the musician is a primary topic. The disambiguation page is the best target for this. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose – no primary topic; keep as a redirect to the disambiguation page.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  11:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per other recommendations above. Note that Madonna (entertainer) and Prince (musician) are a lot more famous than Lights (musician), but they aren't the primary topics for their names, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the most likely reason to type or to link to "Lights" is a desire for a plural form of "Light" that appears at that disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Swf decompiler



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted. Suggested re-target has no information other than a statement that SWF decompilers exist (and the "reference" was an improper advertising link). That doesn't give anyone searching on this term any information that they probably don't already know. It's better to let our readers know upfront that we don't currently cover this topic vs. frustrate them be sending them somewhere where they will have to waste time reading only to find out it's not actually covered. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → SWF (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirects to SWF which contains no information on either decompiling or a computer program called "Flash Decompiler". What's the point of leading a reader to nowhere? Fleet Command (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Adobe Flash which has relevant information. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you excuse me, Bridgeplayer, but there is no relevant information there! Is it my eyes? Fleet Command (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not in a position to comment on your eyes but the information is entirely relevant, in my view. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Skip the sarcasm, dear Bridgeplayer. There is nothing about Flash decompiling or an application that decompiles Flash there. There is just a single statement that says "However, many '.swf decompilers' do exist." I'm going to delete that statement now because of lack of source. Even if it had source, it would have not been a reason to redirect people there because they probably have already assumed that much before searching this term in Wikipedia. I said search, because that's the only use of this redirect now; no article links to it. Fleet Command (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you forgive my curiosity but I've seen you a lot in xFDs. So, has there been a single case in which you have said Delete to a redirect? Fleet Command (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 12 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 10 for just the previous two days. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please don't misjudge me from this question. I just thought maybe you are under non-deletion oath or something. Some people are. Want an example? Fleet Command (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Explication_de_l%27Arithm%C3%A9tique_Binaire



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Kept & refined. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Gottfried Leibniz (links to redirect • [ history] • )

deletion of unnecessary redirect 91.92.179.172 (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep and refine target to Gottfried Leibniz. Mentioned at the target so obliviously useful redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There were only two instances of uses, both referring in the same breath to Leibniz e.g. 'in his Explication de l'Aritmetique binaire in 1703 Leibniz' etc;  it seems unlikely that somebody would search just for the french title.91.92.179.172 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 160 people have searched for the French title in each of the last two months. In any case, you have not specified any policy compliant reason for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)