October 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 30, 2011
Carrie Henn
- 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 no consensus to delete. There is no consensus also about whether this should remain a redirect or be restored to an article, but that discussion can continue on the talk page if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link on living person redirects to film article. Target article has no substantial information on person. Even though the person's role in the film is her only acting role to date, its better to leave the article redlinked than increase the site's article count unnecessary. QuasyBoy 22:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore article, taking to AFD if thought appropriate. - until yesterday this was an article, here. On the face of it there is at least a claim to notability and there are sources available. I am not keen on deleting a redirected article at RFD - better that the substantive page is considered at AFD where it will get much greater exposure. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "until yesterday this was an article" — Not true. It has been a redirect since November 2010; It was un-redirected by Quasiboy the other day and then re-redirected by me. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected, thanks. However, for most of its life, until you first redirected in November 2010, this page was an article. Since your redirection has been challenged I still think that taking a restored page to AfD is the cleanest solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave that up to QuasyBoy at this point, I think. As noted below I'm not even sure what he really wants done, giving that last confusing sentence in his post above. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave as a redirect: I really don't understand Quasiboy's rationale here. "Target article has no substantial information on person"? Henn's only claim to notability is her single film role in Aliens and the award she received for it, and all of that information is covered in the film article. "It's better to leave the article redlinked than increase the site's article count unnecessary"? What does that even mean? Are you suggesting deleting the Carrie Henn page? Because you'd need to go to AfD for that. Wikipedia's article count is irrelevant (redirects aren't counted anyway). WP:NACTOR says that a stand-alone article is justified if the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", which Henn hasn't (she only has the 1 credit). In addition she doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to warrant a stand-alone article (aside from those that merely discuss her in the context of her Aliens role). In my experience it is quite common for the names of people who are only notable for 1 thing to redirect to the article about that thing. For example, Casey Anthony redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony and Andy Biersack redirects to Black Veil Brides. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I was wrong about article count. Redirecting living people to a band, event or court case is not the same thing as redirecting to a work of fiction. Works of fiction articles are a different case, they hardly have if any subtantial biographical information, as is the case with Ms. Henn. If you are redirecting a person to an article about a film, more biographical info should be added on the person besides the person starring in the film. If not a small stub being created is not a big issue. This the main reason why I started this dicussion. QuasyBoy 20:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it any different? There's no reason that the film article can't or doesn't cover all the pertinent info about Henn: she was chosen for the role, she got an award for it, and she never acted again (just as a band article might not include every detail of a particular member's life, if the only notable thing the person ever did was play in that band...note also that Death of Caylee Anthony doesn't contain much biographical detail about Casey Anthony beyond the details of the case, so I don't buy your argument that redirecting a 1-time actor to the work they acted in is much different). The total of sourced biographical information in the stand-alone article beyond her Aliens role was "she's now a teacher & has a kid". If all you can get is a stub, that's a flag that there probably isn't enough secondary source coverage out there to ever build a decent, fleshed-out article (we couldn't even get her birth date & age?). I have no prejudice against there being a stand-alone article if enough secondary source coverage can be found to write a decent biography of her, but in the 7 years since the article was started there hasn't been much change, nor any significant source coverage brought to bear. If you want to track down some more sources and try to write a better article, then by all means go ahead, but a 7-year stub? C'mon. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2011 (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.
File:PICT3517.JPG
- 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. 11:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect left over as a result of a procedural rename, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (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.
File:PICT3468.JPG
- 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. 11:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect left over as a result of a procedural rename, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2011 (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.
Lieutenant colonel/page history
- 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 deleted by RHaworth as WP:CSD G6. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible redirect. This page was once an article, but then it was turned into a redirect, then moved to make way for another page. I just got done doing a history merge, so this redirect shouldn't be needed any longer. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - artefact left over from page move - tagged as db-g6. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2011 (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.
