 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Redirect target edit
The appropriate redirect target is the section that is about the company. This section is where the company information, such as it is resides. This section provides the most information specifically about the company. The section exists within the context of the entire article and reader can scroll to see the rest. -- Whpq (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- The appropriate redirect target is certainly not the section about the company in this particular case — and I say that as a big fan of Summary style. There is virtually no information in that section that would justify linking to the section. The current entire content of the section is
- "The Volcano Vaporizer is manufactured by Storz & Bickel, a company specialized in vaporization technology. The Company is based in Tuttlingen, Germany."
- There isn't a single reliable, independent source. But that also didn't keep you, Whpq, from arguing to keep the article about the company without responding to any rational arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storz & Bickel. I think it is time for a third opinion at this point and I have filed for one in the hope that a fellow editor can help is settle this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't contain much about borderline cases of linking to sections. However, in this particular case, I firmly believe that linking to the section is at least greatly premature, until it has been expanded with at least one reliable third-party source and has gained at least some substance. I understand your actions within the context of your favoring the existance of the article, but seriously, at some point, Whpq, you have to face the fact that the article was deleted for good reason: There are no sources and the company itself is non-notable. --78.34.201.119 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Third opinion: That production section says that Storz & Bickel created the product, so it makes total sense that this should redirect there. If it comes out that the company does not make it, then it should be pointed elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point of my reasoning. But ok. --78.34.201.119 (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Third opinion: That production section says that Storz & Bickel created the product, so it makes total sense that this should redirect there. If it comes out that the company does not make it, then it should be pointed elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, I did not argue for keeping the article as claimed above. Anybody reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storz & Bickel can see that my opinion was for a redirect, and not even a merge. All I stated was that I was in favour a simple redirect versus a delete and redirect so that material is available in the history for further article development in the future. As for reliable sources, as i the AFD, is somebody claiming they don't make the product? A redirect should not mystify a reader. Typing in Storz & Bickel should land them in a place that allows them to quickly know what Storz & Bickel is. The product section does exactly that. It tells the reader that Storz & Bickel makes the Volcano Vaporizer. The reader is then free to scroll about the article to read more about the product if they wish to do so. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)