This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2012
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasNo consensus. I want only to explain why this nomination is different fromWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 24#iPhone 7. In the latter case the redirect lacked any substantial history and was relatively recently created. In addition, iPhone 7 is a very wild speculation about the future of iPhone. (The current iPhone's number is only 5.) On the other hand, Windows 9 redirect has existed for a long time, was initially targeted to the Windows 9x article and was once an article itself. In this circumstances I would hesitate to delete it without a strong consensus.Ruslik_Zero13:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginary name for the successor ofWindows 8. Target article has no info on it. Even if it can be plausibly made into an article, it is still better to delete it perWP:R#DELETE reason #10.Codename Lisa (talk)13:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Interesting find, though it seems the original purpose was changed as the time went by. So, the question is: a person typing Windows 9 in Wikipedia search box these days is looking for what? Windows 9x? or the next version of Windows 8? Well, I'd say the latter is the case, but is there a way of finding out? And if we found out, would have any bearing on the nomination? Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep re-direct for now. When an article forWindows Blue is created (we cannot know in advance when the best time is; but it should be time to create one by the summer of 2013)change the re-direct.Georgia guy (talk)19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is confusing to equate Windows 9 to Windows 95, Windows 98, etc. At this time, people are naturally going to equate it to the successor to Windows 8. That successor may be called (or at least commonly referred to) as Windows 9, but until we are confident of that (and it is reflected atMicrosoft Windows#Versions) this shouldn't exist. Otherwise, it is aWikipedia:crystal ball issue.Superm401 -Talk20:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, this is a redirect, not an article, so while we would need to delete articles, that doesn't apply to redirects. Second, there almost certainly will be a new version of Windows someday, and even if it isn't called Windows 9, it will sometimes be called that anyway.Ego White Tray (talk)03:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Similar discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 24#iPhone 7Ego White Tray (talk)03:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a very likely search term, given that the last two versions have been called "Windows 7" and "Windows 8" it is certain that people will search for the next version under the name "Windows 9" regardless of what it is officially named.Thryduulf (talk)13:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. So, basically, you are saying because it is a very likely search term we should confuse to reader by sending him to a dead end? Sounds like a pretty evil things to do. Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)14:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with redirecting it to a page that clearly shows that it doesn't exist yet - in fact, that's probably exactly what a reader would like to know at this point. So, targeting it to a list of Windows versions would probably be a good idea.Ego White Tray (talk)03:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete better to confess to having no information on this topic than send readers on a wild goose chase.Siuenti (talk)20:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have some information on the topic at the Windows article (it addresses the product line and its history), and it's quite obvious that people will look for the next number in this series.Nyttend (talk)16:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I say we make it a disambiguation (Like the one i made on my talk page,User:IanMurrayWeb/a.IanMurrayWeb (talk)05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I say we make it a disambiguation (Like the one i made on my talk page,User:IanMurrayWeb/a.IanMurrayWeb (talk)05:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No such software; a redirect will only cause people to waste time looking through the target article for information that doesn't exist. —Psychonaut (talk)10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect. For the redirect I would think something like History ofMicrosoft Windows #Future releases, which would briefly cover whatever official announcements or anything on the next release published in reliable and noteworthy sources. Like others have said, it's likely to be a common search term, and Wikipedia can do better than just sending people to a deleted redirect page - even if just a redirect to a section which has a sentence or two which basically just says nothing definite is known at this point. -Helvetica (talk)20:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was:Taken over byWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Blue.(non-admin closure)Codename Lisa (talk)08:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginary name for the successor ofWindows 8. Target article has no info on it. Even if it can be plausibly made into an article, it is still better to delete it perWP:R#DELETE reason #10.Codename Lisa (talk)13:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Make into article. Not imaginary. The following URL reveals that this is what it officially is.http://www.crazyengineers.com/windows-blue-is-microsofts-next-operating-system-after-windows-8-1557/Georgia guy (talk)14:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry,self-published sources are not reliable andWikipedia is not a crystal ball. Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do a Google News search on Windows Blue and see how many results you can find.Georgia guy (talk)15:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The criterion of inclusion of an article in Wikipedia is not Google hits. (SeeSearch engine test.) The criteria areWP:NPOV,WP:RS,WP:N andWP:NOT and I doubt the last three are satisfiable now. If you wish to make it an article, I will not disturb you. But as I said, perWP:R#DELETE, reason #10, deleting this redirect is still in order even if you plan to make it an article, until you actually do so. Furthermore, expect your article to be scrutinized by the community and even nominated for deletion. Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)15:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. PerWikipedia:Crystal ball, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."Superm401 -Talk20:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep redirect as crystal ball doesn't apply to redirects. Don't make an article.Ego White Tray (talk)03:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Similar discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 24#iPhone 7Ego White Tray (talk)03:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This name gets many thousands of ghits, including in news articles published less than 24 hours ago, indicating that this is a very significant search term. This is not an article so none ofWP:CRYSTAL,WP:RS,WP:N andWP:NOT apply.WP:NPOV does apply to redirects, but not in the same way as articles, and I'm struggling to see how it is relevant to this case.Thryduulf (talk)13:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. So, basically, you are saying because it is a very likely search term we should confuse to reader by sending him to a dead end? Sounds like a pretty evil things to do. And by the way, it is a very impolite thing to do to just scan someone's comment for links and picking on them instead of actually reading his message. Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)14:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm saying that as people are looking for information about this on Wikipedia we should send them to where we have some, albeit limited, information. A redlink is an encouragement to start an article we don't presently want, a redirect is an equal discouragement.Thryduulf (talk)12:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. I am afraid we do not have "some [information on this topic], albeit limited". We have no info whatsoever. As for sending the reader on a wild goose chase in long trick article, I really do not think repeating myself would add any value to the discussion. Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk)18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Spirngfield Local High School
[edit]- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.Thryduulf (talk)12:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably-unlikely typo: duplicate stub later turned into redirect because a better article already existed. Probably noncontroversial, but does not meet speedy criteriaWP:CSD#R3 because it was a stub.Closeapple (talk)10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasG7 Speedy Delete. (Deleted byUser:Plastikspork)Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)07:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I think it should be deleted. A free trial is a broad business model. It is used for newspapers, magazines, and many other kinds ofsubscription business models. It can be used for shareware, but that's not a dominant use of the term. Potentially, this could be created as an article later, or redirected to a better target.Superm401 -Talk20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Yes I'm aware that I'm the one who created the redirect, but as you said, it would probably be better to let it be an article about the concept of a free trial in general rather than shareware. But in order for it to be recreated as an article (and I think there's enough sources to do so,) it should be recreated from scratch.Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
