Talk:Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion?

This article has been marked for Speedy deletion with the note "This one is EXTREMELY IMPLAUSIBLE". Why is it so implausible? Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel[1] is a Microsoft product. --Hm2k (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Hm2k

Please allow me to use frank languages. (Although, I will stick to social conduct rules.)

First, do you have a shred of evidence that says Microsoft has a product called Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel? If you have I'll be glad to see it because I'm curious.

Second, even if you have such evidence, the reason for marking this redirect as speedy deletion is that your redirect is harmful instead of being useful: The article to which the link redirects has nothing whatsoever about the subject of the redirect. Reader click on a link that reads Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel, curious as to see what is this and then gets bamboozled by an article which explain absolutely nothing about the so-called Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel.

Note that the aim of redirection here in Wikipedia is to help users and not to waste their time or bring confusion and frustration for them.

Now, if you feel Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel is notable subject, either create a separate article or stub for it or otherwise explain it in an article with similarity of subject and context and redirect there. But whatever you do, don't send us to search for it in overlong featured stories about software industry giants.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention: Do you know what's a weasel word? Weasel words promote their subject through a deceiving illusion of credibility.

This redirect plays the same role. It's a weasel wikilink.

And by the way, can you please refrain from creating dead wikilinks too? Thanks!

Fleet Command (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose was that it was unlikely that anybody would write an article about this product, as regardless of it's obvious notability there's a limited amount of detail to write about it however it is possible that someone may wish to mention this product in the Microsoft article. As it is a Microsoft product this makes the most sense. Maybe you would like to add the details? If not, I'll probably get around to it at some point. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Using peacock terms and weasel words here too?

First, I see no evidence of obvious Notability. All I see is obvious lack of notability. Notability requires verifiable evidence.

Second, no it doesn't make any sense to introduce it in Microsoft article at all; it is out of context and it will be removed in the blink of an eye. If you want to explain about Virtual PC Control Panel, do it here not in the Microsoft article. Doing this will prevent the speedy deletion of this redirect under this criterion. But you had better keep general notability guideline in mind. Articles also get deleted when they are not notable.

Fleet Command (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Jee, if there's a lack of notability then what's this?

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Looks like lots of reliable sources to me. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Improvements are always welcome in Wikipedia. Good luck. Fleet Command (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)