Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2008

Monkey Steals the Peach → Ashida Kim[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article it redirects to provides no information on the topic. Completely useless and confusing. I believe in "redirects with possibilities", but having no information at all is unreasonable. — TheBilly(Talk) 23:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - term does not appear at all in target article. Neither does either "monkey" or "peach". B.Wind (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Keep after modification of target article by Swpb. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, problem solved. The target page now carries sourced information on the topic. Which probably took less time than this deletion nomination. — Swpbtalk.edits 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Swpb's recent edit to Ashida Kim (which now mentions "Monkey Steals the Peach"). Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Positions → Template:2007 Paul Potiki Shield[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. – PeeJay 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alices Adventures in Wonderland/Lory → Lory[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a remnant - left behind after a page move from a subdirectory. Redirect not needed - request to have it deleted. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Soviet Holocaust → Communist terrorism[edit]

The result of the debate was deleted. There is no established proper noun in scholarly or mainstream usage called Soviet Holocaust. The redirect seems to attempt to apply the ideological baggage of connotation from one set of historical events to another in a manner in gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which will be offensive to many users. Besides the latter, I fail to see the redirect's purpose in any case. - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive misleading name, the word holocaust is even not mentioned in the main article Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually this redirect has possibilities for an article, these books call the Stalinist crimes of the 1930's a "Soviet holocaust" on the Russian people: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Martintg (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole Communist terrorism has always been a portmanteau article, and in order to keep it, even Stalin's crimes and the gulag were included along with communist support for real terrorists. I am afraid an article on its own would also suffer from ambiguity in the title, as some people may think it primarily refers to the Soviet Union's treatment of Jews. If it cannot be its own article, the info above may be included in the Holocaust page.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect now points to Great Purge. I've added some references in that article that shows that mainstream authors like Ian Kershaw describes that period as a "Soviet holocaust". So while it may not warrant development into an article of its own, it certainly is a valid search term. Martintg (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but redirect to Great Purge, per my comments above. In fact, it probably should be expanded into a dab page, to point to both The Holocaust (as the Nazis perpetrated it on Soviet soil too), and also to the Great Purge as that is how many authors describe it. Martintg (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with new target. Great Purge more appropriate destination.B.Wind (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todos Santos, California → Concord, California[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept (nomination withdrawn). -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is even created because it makes no sense. Todos Santos is not even an alternative name for Concord. Chris! ct 06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please refer to the 2nd sentence of the article Concord, California, "Originally founded in 1869 as the community of Todos Santos..." This redirect should remain per Lists of Places which have links to all named locations some of which exist with new names after a name change or have been absorbed into another community. Todos Santos appears at List of places in California (T) and all the items on the list should eventually be created or linked to an appropriate article. Todos Santos was the name of Concord briefly and should therefore not be a redlink to a non-notable article regarding the Todos Santos period of Concord it should simply redirect to Concord, California.W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is in the article, but the article claims it was almost instantly renamed. So, do we really need a redirect in case someone writes something about that short period there? Wikipedia does not have anything on it except for the list quoted (all the other links refer to the deletion debate), which however expressly states that it is a list of "current" localities only, which means Todos Santos should not actually be there. So we have to google for use and notoriety, which in this case is of course very difficult, because there are literally hundreds of places called "Todos Santos" all over the world. Most false positives seem to come from Todos Santos, Baja California Sur, and from Todos Santos in Bolivia, but there ia also a Todos Santos Plaza (in Concord), a Todos Santos bay, a Todos Santos island, a battle of Dos Santos (probably the Baja California one) in the Mexican war. However, one important google is the Britannica: [9], which also asserts that it was named Todos Santos a bit earlier, so I suppose held the name a bit longer too. As fara as I see, it may actually be the only good googel there. Note that Todos Santos-Concord is mentioned at the disambiguation page Todos Santos. So, is Britannica sufficient to establish enough use to retain the redirect or is it enough that it is mentioned at a dab page? I would tend to go for retention. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This really was the name of the city for a short period; that's enough to make it a good redirect. Moreover, Todos Santos is, in fact, a disambiguation page, so this more specific redirect shouldn't cause any problems that wouldn't arise otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlist Based on the evidence given above, I think it is appropriate to unlist. Chris! ct 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Sockpuppet-afraid → User:UBX/Sockpuppet-afraid[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox that has been userfied and is not transcluded on any page. Khatru2 (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cross-namespace redirect. If this were mentioned as a candidate for speedy deletion in WP:CSD, I'd urge that. B.Wind (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_18&oldid=1145623279"