Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 12[edit]

Convert or die → Forced conversion[edit]

The result of the debate was keep John Reaves (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely, attackish redirect. Patstuarttalk·edits 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convert or die. Uncle G 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 172000 ghits for "convert or die", 215000 ghits for "forced conversion" (I'm sure the unique hit ratio is somewhat similar). The phrase also gets hits on Google Scholar, so it's a very common phrase. --- RockMFR 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as hits are high enough to warrant simple redirect. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing how this is an attack redirect and is a somewhat common phrase. Koweja 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore

Re: Rush to delete a highly interesting phenomenon, not seeing the edited version or on the basis of blind intolerance or intolerance to critics of intolerant-jihad.

I created an entirely NEW page [1], which yesterday's aguments do not apply (IMHO), in deleting it so FAST... How can one see the difference?

The ones arguing for redirect or even rushing to delete... (most probably) did not see my edited vesion, which is 1) Not just an interview, 2) facts presented, 3) encylopedic terminology. 4) It is not about "race". 5) A rational person, a moderate Muslim would NOT regard exposing radicals as an "attack on all Islam".

Are the follwing sources "unreliable"? Or did the Guardian invented the Steve Centanni story as a "novel"? Shall I guess, the editor did not see the sources?

[2]FoxNews on Al Qaeda's ultimatum to US[3]BBC on the Mandaeans 'face extinction'

[4]NewsMax in general

On the Steve Centanni 'forced to convert at gunpoint' by: [5]The Guardian

[6] IHT

And even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2006

Why be one be so obscure in pushing to delete such important cases, current events & a goal by Jihad? ~ Historianism 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You will need to go to WP:DRV if you want the article restored especially since the redirct is now fully protected. This is not the place to contest an AFD. --67.68.154.176 06:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cherry blossom → Sakura[edit]

The result of the debate was keep' John Reaves (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura is a type of cherry blossom, not the other way round! Should be replaced with a short article on cherry blossom in general listing sakura as one type. MossMan 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There appears to be an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article should be about the concept of "cherry blossoms" or the concept of "cherry blossoms in Japan", with the article title being part of the dispute. This isn't the place to get content disputes resolved. Gavia immer (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cherry Blossom, Cherry blossom, and cherry blossoms should all point to the same place, whatever that may be. --- RockMFR 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above, disputed. Until disputes are resolved (in the proper place), leave it. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Foo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 07:50, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)

These cross-namespace redirects have titles that give the impression of mainspace topics. There seems a very strong case for deleting these. Confusing and unnecessary. WjBscribe 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too much chance of people who only want to read the encyclopedia hitting these by accident. --ais523 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, these look like plausible article titles. Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, added CHICOTW to the list. --WatermelonPotion 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as the creator of and primary user of the CHICOTW redirect, I understand the RfD and support deletion now. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete first 3 - bad use of crossspace redirect. Keep last - chance of someone accidentally coming across CHICOTW and mistaking it for an article are minimal; plus, it's useful. Patstuarttalk·edits 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as needing WP: redirect, not article namespace RDR. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all these are legitimate topics that have been hijacked by wikiprojects. Koweja 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, WP:CHICOTW already exists as a proper shortcut so no need to keep CHICOTW. -- Renesis (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the previous comments. mattbr 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, though there may be a suitable article to which worldwide view can be pointed – perhaps globalization? – Qxz 19:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Project Foo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 07:51, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)

These cross-namespace redirects do at least include the word "project", but seem likely to cause confusion with any similarly named real-world projects the user may be searching for. Confusing and unnecessary. WjBscribe 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WikiFoo → Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —freak(talk) 07:51, Mar. 16, 2007 (UTC)

These cross-namespace redirects do include the word "Wiki" but given the number of websites that now (thanks to Wikia) have Wiki in their name, they suggest that Wikis exist under those titles. Seems unlikely the targets will be what are being searched for. Also confusing and unnecessary. WjBscribe 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_12&oldid=1088719115"