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. Involved closed given the backlog and with clear consensus after three weeks of listing. Perhaps now is the time for SimonTrew to put together an article and please everyone. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sonatype is notable for many reasons, Maven just being one of them. In addition, the Maven article does not state that Maven was made by sonatype, only that someone from Sonatype created it, and it wasn't even a Sonatype project when was created (it was orignally part of Apache Turbine). G051051 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and BDD. I could probably knock up a decent stub, at least, for this article (Sonatype) but don't like to do so while things are being discussed. Si Trew (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2014 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This redirect is to a section that no longer exists, and from a character no longer mentioned at the target article. Looking at the history of the redirect suggests a merge was performed, but the edits the same user made to the target page were on other content. BDD (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Was just deleted at AFD and recreated as a redirect to a list of unexplained deaths. I have reverted the entry on the list as the source is a blog and there is no obvious reason why a non-notable individual should be listed there without reliable sourcing. This redirect is therefore redundant. I'm reluctant to just G4 it or IAR it as I know there will be pushback SpartazHumbug!13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no credible sourcing for the claim that this death is "unsolved". All that we have are obituaries and reposts reporting that the cause of death was initially undetermined, which is true for large numbers of people who die nontraumatic deaths, especially at home. The subject was not a famous person, and there was no reason to expect news reports on her autopsy. Most important of all, there is no reason for us to inflict this kind of speculation on her family; what few posts and blogs already exist out there are insensitive enough, and we shouldn't do anything to encourage more gratuitous fact-free commentary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, don't you two ever quit? That entry on the List of unsolved deaths page had been there for over a year and now it suddenly became a problem. There are several entries on that list for people who no longer have articles; why is this any different? (And not being notable for Wikipedia and not being famous at all are two different things, HW.) The article got deleted; what else do y'all want? And per below, WilyD, Hunter Bryce was female, not male; and she was discussed at the target, before Spartaz deleted the mention. Speaking of that, since when do we delete things like that before the conclusion of an RfD? That's like deleting a source from an article and then bringing the article to AfD with the rationale: "unsourced article". Erpertblah, blah, blah...17:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are really good reasons for potentially causing distress to an unfortunate woman's survivors and raising groundless speculation about the death of someone who was neither "famous" nor notable. It's become clear that you rarely if ever pass up an occasion to cast aspersions on editors who disagree with you, and it's well past time for you to realize that enforcing BLP and RS requirements is not all about you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All about me? What are you even talking about? And you really need to knock it off with the "casting aspersions" nonsense for once. She was in several movies, so she was famous. And I love how you're pretending to be all cordial and everything here as though you really care about the family (if they didn't want her death to be public knowledge, they wouldn't have mentioned it, now would they?); quite the opposite of how you behave at AfDs.
But back to the subject... as I clearly stated before, Spartaz removed the mention of her at the target and then brought the redirect to RfD. How is that even allowed? Erpertblah, blah, blah...06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its allowed because it was sourced to a blog so didn't meet any criteria to be in that article. Once it was removed there was no need for the redirect. Simples. SpartazHumbug!06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited, she, sorry. If a mention is eventually included at the page, restoring the redirect would make sense (and this discussion would be subsequently invalid, since part of the delete rationale is that she's not mentioned, so G4 wouldn't apply. WilyD18:06, 2 April 2014 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: As nom, I don't think a standalone article on The Foreign Candy Company would satisfy WP:CORP, The most notable contribution is already documented and sourced at the article Warheads (candy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vycl1994 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 April 2014
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 9#Several redirects to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
