Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 14

December 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 14, 2012

Template:+1



 * 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 Converted to a template. Ruslik_ Zero 11:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Like (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I want (someone) to create Google's +1 here, that is also popular. Tito Dutta (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Just un-redirect the page and get started. :-) If it's not a first great design, someone will improve it later. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTFACEBOOK Wikipedia is not a social club. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quickly whipped something up. It's a start, I suppose. — Theo polisme  02:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ryan Lanza



 * 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 Keep. After reading this discussion I think that Ryan Lanza will be better served by keep this redirect and targeting it to Investigation section, where the confusion is clarified. Ruslik_ Zero 11:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Problematic redirect from a BLP standpoint, although the article does currently mention him. I haven't looked at the timestamps, but I presume that it was created while he was incorrectly being reported as the shooter. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait to see what his role is in the shooting results in. He may have zero to do with it, at which I support deletion, but he may also because a figure in the incident, and thus would remain a valid search term redirct. --M ASEM (t) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Though, given this is a redirect with almost no history, I would agree with a Delete for the short term even if he does prove to be a appropriate search term at which point the redirect can be recreated and locked down. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 'creator keep I did make the redirect while he was incorrectly identified as the shooter. But I think even as the incorrect person, he is a reasonable redirect, as people may get a hold of that name and look for the article, where we can correct the reader's incorrect information? On the other hand, I do certainly see the argument that he would be normally worthy of "name protection" had he not previously been misidentified. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reason why this redirect should exist. Person is 100% non-notable at this time. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep valid search term. Article even states that he was incorrectly identified as the shooter. Since he has been publicly identified with being the shooter, it is a term likely to be sought. As our article states he was incorrectly identified as such, we even have information on this person in the article. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Probably a reasonable search term, but having a redirect, particularly given Wikipedia's visibility and principles, feels so.... On the other hand, the article is now always going to include "Ryan Lanza". Nasty case. Not sure of the best path forward here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have said, this persons name is a likely search target and will remain so, therefore the only consideration is that the target is correct and there is no doubt it is. Yes we do have to be careful of BLP, but with a redirect in we are discouraging the creation of a biography we don't want, reducing the likelihood of a negative one being created. There is the chance of BLP-infringing material being added to the target but this is unaffected by the presence or absence of this redirect, Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:CHEAP, this is the best article to which Ryan Lanza can be redirected, so long as his mention is not unnecessarily defamatory.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. An absolute BLP nightmare. Is this the sort of thing you want to encourage? --86.40.198.87 (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a redirect, not an article, and the article already contains "Ryan Lanza" in the text. Further also redirects there. Are you suggesting that all redirects from any person's name to this article be deleted? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I direct you to Lizabetha's comment below as an adequate reply to this. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, you appear to assert that because an error was made, it's our responsibility to pretend that it never happened and scrub all traces from our encyclopedia (instead of documenting the error, as we currently do). What section of the BLP policy do you believe calls for such action, and how is it consistent with the policy's goals? (As discussed above, readers typing "Ryan Lanza" already have read or heard the name in connection with the shooting, so we effectively would help to reinforce the misinformation that he was involved by failing to send them to an article explaining that he wasn't.) —David Levy 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC) To be clear, I don't assert that it's our responsibility to actively dispel the misunderstanding; I assert that the redirect (which leads to an article in which Ryan Lanza is discussed in a manner consistent with widespread coverage by reliable sources) doesn't exacerbate the problem. That it also counters it is a side effect to which no one should object. —David Levy 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep intro of target addresses BLP concerns. At the moment I think this would be more likely to undo damage already done by the mass media than do further damage, but ask me again in a week or two. 2010 SO16 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the article clearly addresses the fact that he was originally misidentified as the shooter, and as such, his name will remain in the article. A redirect is the best way of handling this situation. Canuck 89 (converse with me) 08:52, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A horrific BLP issue that has no real rationale for existence. He is only related to the shooter and a victim, he had nothing tangible to do with the massacre and keeping this redirect only serves to imply guilt. The redirect from Nancy Lanza is valid since she is a victim of this spree, but not an unrelated relative. No, no, folks. Lizabetha (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that he was taken into police custody, so is related to the investigation. His name appeared in media reports as mistakenly identified to be the shooter, so is related to the massacre's coverage. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and keep information that he is not the shooter in the lead, since the outburst of people mistaking facebook for a law court has been picked up on by the media, and considering the likelyhood of the search term, we should keep this here to inform people of the truth. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  10:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the man is not involved in the shooting, and was misidentified in some early reports. It is absolutely a violaton of Wikipedia BLP policy to treat a living person in this libelious way.  N2e (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the above "BLP" arguments utterly baffling.  Anyone searching for "Ryan Lanza" already is aware of his name in this context.  The redirect, leading to an article in which the perpetrator's misidentification as this individual is explained, helps to counter the damage to his reputation.  —David Levy 14:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am only weighing in because I had searched "Ryan Lanza" when looking for the article about the shooting. His was one of the names initially associated with the reporting and most of the reports continue to mention him if only to emphasise that he was not the shooter. The article contains prominent and accurate descriptions of his connection to the topic. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - the people above saying 'Keep' obviously have no idea what our BLP policy says or why it exists. There is NO reason at all for this redirect to continue to exist. People should be given a page that simply shows an error. An error is the ONLY reason that any attention was directed to this man and it is not Wikipedia's place to perpetuate or even try to fix what the media did as a screwup. Delete it immediately. -- Avanu (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think the BLP policy says, and why do you think it exists?
 * We only serve to reinforce it by leaving this redirect in place. Leaving the reader with nothing at all ensures that any such misinformation is never reinforced. Wikipedia needs to follow BLP and leave the brother out of this entirely, unless some reasonable evidence is brought forward that shows he is involved. -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because he was not the perpetrator does not mean that he was not involved - the article covers the shootings and the aftermath, including the reaction to it and the investigation. Through no fault of his own Ryan is involved with both the media reaction and the investigation. By correctly and neutrally reporting these facts we are not reinforcing anything. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment: "Through no fault of his own Ryan is involved with both the media reaction and the investigation" should be telling you that Wikipedia shouldn't be covering this guy. Until he is shown to have some actual involvement in things, the stuff the media is doing, like naming him as the shooter, or involving him in any in the story is libelous/slanderous. It isn't Wikipedia's job to take on the mission of trying to fix anything the media does wrong. Ryan Lanza needs to simply be left alone unless there is a solid reason for him to be included in this. That is what our BLP policy is meant to protect. Too many people here want to ignore that. -- Avanu (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it defamatory to correctly document the fact that Ryan Lanza was misidentified as the suspect?  In my view, your position constitutes a "mission of trying to fix anything the media does wrong" (by pretending that it never happened).  —David Levy 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled as to how a redirect to an article explaining the fact that Ryan Lanza was misidentified as the suspect reinforces a widespread perception to the contrary. Anyone typing his name already is familiar with it in the shooting's context.  Some mistakenly believe that he's the suspect (and probably will continue to believe that unless and until they're informed otherwise).
 * Keep - One line of argument for delete is his lack of involvement in the shooting. But it is this fact, that he was initially misidentified as the shooter, and that he cooperated early in the investigation (and that these points are clearly explained in the article) that means his name is associated with the subject.  OTOH, the other line of argument for delete involves BLP issues.  Here I would defer to those with more expertise in this area.  If there were agreement that this is a violation of BLP then I would support deletion.  However, at this point there is no consensus on that. Begnome (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - BLP issues trump "valid search term" in my book.  nableezy  - 02:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What BLP issues are those? And what part of the BLP policy do you think trumps redirects from valid search terms to articles where the subject is discussed? Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know, maybe that the person that this article at one point wrongly named as somebody who killed 20 children shouldnt need to have a google search for his name turn up in the first several results the massacre that he was wrongly accused of committing for the rest of his life?  nableezy  - 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ryan Lanza is discussed in the article, and this redirect helps clarify that he was not involved in the shooting itself. It is standard procedure to make redirects for people mentioned in articles who do not merit their own articles at this time. The redirect should link to the section which explains his connection to the crime (misuse of his ID and the initial misidentification as the perpetrator). This redirect actually helps clear his name per BLP policy. Jokestress (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per all arguments above. He is inherently connected to the case in a notable way, so even if clearing his name is an irrelevant consideration, this should still redirect. The only explicit argument that seems to have been made for deletion is the defamation point, but redirecting to correct information is clearly the opposite of that. Suppose there were another case in which a man was accused of a shooting that never actually occurred, the accusation went viral on Facebook, and this incident was covered by enough sources to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Would anyone argue that Wikipedia still shouldn't have an article about that man because it would somehow encourage the defamation? ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 21:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how he is "inherently connected to the case in a notable way", other than being wrongly identified as the shooter. If that is it, then you don't have real notability (per Wiki standards for sure), you have error. If a newspaper prints a retraction, we don't simply say "well, Morgan Freeman said all this stuff about Newtown" despite evidence to the contrary. No, in fact, the best option is to simply remove it. That seems to clearly be the case here. The media is driven by ratings and profit. Wikipedia is supposed to be a bit more refined. Again, we're not here to mop up and print corrections for every media outlet that messes up. We'd be here all day. We're here to post the best and most factual information we can get, and re-associating a person's name with a terrible event, despite your best intentions, is exactly in opposition to our BLP policy. -- Avanu (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does BLP require us to remove the information from the article that he was wrongly identified and reported repeatedly? I personally think that in itself is notable as part of the media feeding frenzy (which we are unfortunately part of). If the information in the article is removed, then I agree that the redirect should be, however, if the article content is justifiable, then the redirect is as well imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it were me, his name would be removed, and all we would say is Several news outlets initially wrongly identified Lanza's brother as the shooter following a mistaken report to the Associated Press by a police officer. Thats it.  nableezy  - 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - highly plausible search term, and mentioned in the article. The BLP arguments are pretty spurious given that the article specifically states that he was falsely identified as the shooter. And it's quite right that we mention him, even if only to correct misinformed readers; much in the same way that we have an article on Richard Jewell, falsely identified as the person behind the Olympic Park bombing. Robofish (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -Anyone typing in that name will get a suggested link to the article anyway, as his name is mentioned in it. No need for a redirect that suggests anything more. The article isn't directly about him and to be on the safe side, it shouldn't be even suggested that it is. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, anyone typing in that name in the internal search box will probably get a suggested link to the article (what is the benefit of this over a link?). Anyone accessing Wikipedia in any one of the myriad other ways that they can and do may or may not get a suggested link depending on the specific method used (some are predictable, some are not). Having a redirect from a person associated with a topic to the article about that topic is standard practice and does not imply that topic is about them - if it did we would have to rewrite our WP:BLP1E policies and delete thousands of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - And I honestly hope if the outcome of this discussion is to keep that Jimbo will override it. This is a sickening disregard to BLP policy. You seriously want Wikipedia to redirect this innocent persons name to the article about his mothers murder by his brother as encyclopedic? It isn't. Its guilt by association. I am not even going to bother reading any of the above comments. This is why some decisions of the community don't always stand and WMF has to step in.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see guilt by association, since the redirect is just a name, and has no meaning on its own. The imputed guilt is lacking. A user entering the name could easily have misidentified the name with a victim and not with a perpretrator. In either case, the article provides clarification of the linkage of the name with the event. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that many people will fail to see what is right in front of them, but I am not interested in what others fail to see here. Just in what editors understand and can convey in written form. Something you have failed to do. I also know that people are still trying to upload images of Ryan as Adam and that the media screwed this up badly and that it is our responsibility to keep these two seprated and not make them a single entity. As the redirecting editor admits: "I did make the redirect while he was incorrectly identified as the shooter". That is more than enough to know this is just wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That people are still confusing them is another reason to keep the redirect. People searching for Ryan's name will be taken to the article where they are educated about who the perpetrator was, who Ryan is and why he was mistakenly identified as the shooter. Without the redirect people will remain ignorant, and some people would assume we don't have an article about the gunman and start one - that would be an actual BLP violation rather than an imagined one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we redirect a victim's name to the shooting article, we are not imputing that they are the shooter. You are assuming that redirecting a person's name to a crime article is the same as claiming they are the perpetrator of the crime, which is patently not the case. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP with false accusations is tricky. While mentioning the accusation at all can be damaging--in the same way that negative political ads tend to "stick" even when immediately rebutted--not addressing it out could also raise readers' suspicions: "oh, he's guilty, Wikipedia just won't touch it with a ten foot pole". In a Richard Jewell situation, far from being "horrible", it really is better from the perspective of "do no harm" to clearly state that the accusation is false.  But since the guy is never going to have an article, and the Facebook incident was a brief flash in the pan that will be quickly forgotten, I think a redirect does in this case do more harm than good.  71.58.222.181 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE please that Peter Lanza has also been created. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That person is neither involved in the shooting, nor significantly identified with the shooting. So it be brought to RFD. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT I have nominated for deletion. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as an IAR special case. Against the current (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete that the media F'd it up on this and reported him as the killer before they knew for sure, does not trump his BLP rights. The guy lost his mom and his brother did a horrendous act, there is not reason to tag him forever with this event on WP.  Arzel (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The fact "that the media F'd it up on this" has been and continues to be relevant. Articles from
 * Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/this-is-why-the-press-circulated-ryan-lanzas-facebook-page/266492/
 * NPR http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167466320/coverage-rapid-and-often-wrong-in-tragedys-early-hours
 * BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20764908
 * show that the early misidentification is notable in relation to the subject. This strengthens my suspicion that the redirect should be kept rather than speedy deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begnome (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So that a bunch of other people in the media are morons means that Ryan should suffer? That makes absolutely no sense at all.  Arzel (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and redirect to Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting. As much as I really, really hate to say this, Ryan's name is a very valid search term. His name is fairly prevalent in the news, some of it because people are using it highlight how badly the news outlets handled and are still handling it. People are still misidentifying him and/or using his picture as if he was the killer. If anything, it's probably more important than ever to have his name redirect here so that people can read that he isn't the killer. I'd also go so far as to say that he should probably has a subsection in the investigation section that goes over his mis-identification as the killer and the poor judgement of the media in leaking this information to the public. I'd love to think that us removing his name as a redirect would help give him back his anonymity, but it won't. If anything, it'll probably help perpetuate the misinformation out there about him. It's a valid search term and it should remain, but we should have a subsection in the article about his misidentification and redirect his name to that section. (Such as "Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Investigation#Misidentification" or something like that.) That way it'd be easier for people to get straight to the information about him rather than to the article as a whole. At the very least we should redirect to the investigation section that goes over the info about him. But right now the deletion argument stems from people arguing that it hurts him. It does, I won't deny that. But it'd hurt both him and the completeness of Wikipedia to delete it for that reason. He is notable within the sphere of this tragedy, both for his relation to Adam Lanza and for how badly the media handled the misidentifying of him.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

XMPP/Jabber



 * 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 withdrawn as WP:BEFORE fail. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → XMPP (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete This redirect is a strange joining of XMPP, a communications protocol, and Jabber, its former name. It is no longer used since I changed the link at Saros (software) to point directly to XMPP. So now it's an orphan, an unlikely search term, and potentially misleading in its use of a slash (it was never a subpage). --BDD (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as "XMPP/Jabber" is very widely used on the internet to refer to the protocol, meaning it is a likely search term. That Wikipedia used to use / to designate subpages is completely irrelevant to this redirect - the risk of confusion is infinitesimal. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PSP codec



 * 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 Retarget to PlayStation Portable hardware. Ruslik_ Zero 11:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → H.264/MPEG-4 AVC (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

deletion. reason 1. unreasonably difficult search (PSP articles about codecs). 2. confusion - this is not the only codec on PSP Widefox ; talk 12:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget as this gets a significant number of hits, and "PSP codec" is certainly a plausible search (although not for the current target). There are two alternative places we could point this, PlayStation Portable system software or PlayStation Portable hardware, I'm not sure which is better. The first has information about codecs in a few places through the article but no concentration and on the face of it redirecing "codec" to an article about software feels more logical to me. However the latter, has a directly relevant sentence at the top of a more generally relevant section. I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/PlayStation to see what their thoughts are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * yes that's the point isn't it? without the redirect readers will find those articles. The notion of nailing a codec to hardware is intrinsically odd. Widefox ; talk 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Heavy on the Grind Entertainment



 * 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 Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Sick Wid It Records (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete? Someone moved Sick etc. to Heavy etc. in September, but it was apparently pagemove vandalism. I've moved it back to the previous title. Since it appears to have been pagemove vandalism, I was tempted to move it without a redirect, but the fact that it's been at Heavy etc. for three months makes me fear breaking links. Has it been at the old title long enough? Is it more important to get rid of vandalism and potentially alleviate confusion over the page title, or is it more important to avoid breaking links in page histories and on other websites? I see the benefits and weaknesses of both sides, so I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sick Wid It may have changed its name to Heavy on the Grind, but I can't find anything definitive on the matter. Certainly Heavy on the Grind was the label for E-40's recent albums. http://www.djbooth.net/index/albums/review/e-40-revenue-retrievin-day-shift-night-shift/ lists both Sick etc. and Heavy etc. on the label. TimBentley (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Futz!



 * 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 speedy keep due to withdrawal (non-admin closure). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of Teletoon Original Productions (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This page should redirect to 9 Story Entertainment, not List of Teletoon Original Productions, since a list isn't exactly conducive to discussion. The nominator in the deletion discussion for this page even mentioned doing so as a possible alternative to deletion: "I am suggesting deletion or redirection to the article on the production company." However, the closing administrator (and subsequent redirect creator) refuses to make this change. Note that the deletion discussion doesn't preclude doing so per WP:GNG: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Withdraw: I've changed my mind on this since there is currently no discussion of Futz! at 9 Story Entertainment, but it is included at List of Teletoon Original Productions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and SALT per my comments at the AFD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This user's opinion should be disregarded in determining WP:CON for this issue as WP:GNG no longer applies, and the opinion thus violates WP:POLL as no valid reason is given for it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.