Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2010

Zen Department Store[edit]

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 retarget to CentralWorld. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a rather nonsensical redirect - the target article doesn't mention the Zen dept store -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to CentralWorld - partly destroyed by a fire during the 2010 Thai political protests but that seems insufficient reason to redirect there. However, there is informative material at the retarget and this seems a good solution. As a former article, deletion raises GFDL issues, and would be a bad idea. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Bridgeplayer.--Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ah yes, I agree with the suggestion to retarget. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nurdle (bead)[edit]

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 keep. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No incoming links form articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - doesn't meet WP:RFD#DELETE, harmless, conceivable search term and I see no good reason to delete. Long established redirect and deletion may break links in external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid reason for deletion. —Pengo 03:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Member states of the Arab League[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template, wieldy name for a template Green Giant (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unneeded - why have long titles for templates Green Giant (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipeida:Editor review/Coldplay Expert[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect (yes, this is in the mainspace) containing no relevant page history. Just the artifact of a pagemove half an hour after it was created under a misspelled title.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lahore, Dehli[edit]

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 Speedy deleted as WP:CSD R3 by JamesBWatson. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, created by a blocked user Green Giant (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as G3 and so tagged. Obviously created as a, misspelt, failed attempt at humour. Creating such redirects contributed to the creator's block. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Too Long[edit]

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 keep and convert into disambiguation page. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete. I don't think we should have terms in article space redirecting into WP namespace. There are quite a few other things for which "Too Long" could theoretically stand, and readers of Wikipedia (as opposed to editors) will be mighty confused if they type in something and it takes them to WP community namespace. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reason for this redirect to send readers off into project space. If someone has a suggested target within the encyclopedia, I support any such retargeting instead, though I don't have a suggestion myself. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any single good target. I guess Length is a possibility, but the connection is a little too attenuated for that to make a solid redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismabiguate - this was originally targeted to Discovery (Daft Punk album), on which it is a song. Whilst we could simply restore that redirect, there are several songs/albums that start 'Too Long' so a disamb page looks useful. I have alerted the creator who is around from time to time. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dabified it but before closure can someone see if the dab could be improved?--Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Banda Jalal Khan[edit]

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 retargeted to correct article. Green Giant (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect for Pakistan, can't see where it could point Green Giant (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

IOtop (Unix)[edit]

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 Re-targeted to Load (computing)#Other system performance commands. No content was merged so there are no licensing issues. However, stats show quite a bit of usage (which maybe because it's the top listing if you Google 'iotop unix'). -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly listed at AFD (discussion). Subject is not even mentioned at the target article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pakish[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted protologism (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakish) Green Giant (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pakki75[edit]

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. — ξxplicit 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent user, not a plausible redirect Green Giant (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gaza Holocaust[edit]

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 keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a BBC article, it says "Matan Vilnai said Palestinians risked a "shoah", the Hebrew word for a big disaster." He used poor wording, but he said A "shoah,"(not capitalized). The phrase he used in Hebrew was yamitu al atsmam shoah gdolah yoter. What the actual translation is is ""As the Qassam rocket fire [on Israeli civilians] intensifies and increases its range, the Palestinians will bring upon themselves a greater catastrophe because we will use all our might to defend ourselves." You're giving a mistranslation credence. And by all objective means, there was no Holocaust. The Holocaust, HaShoah, is understood as an absolute term in Israel - the annihilation of European Jewry. How could anyone threaten to make someone "more annihilated?" The redirect should be deleted because it relies on a disputed (mis)translation, only really used by one side's zealots, which shows inherent POV is, well, POV, and the extreme POV shown in I/P articles hurts Wikipedia's integrity, and ultimately, reputation. Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Islamists and overtly POV biased people using the term does not make it acceptable. Can you show me what reliable media has done this????Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per last RfD. Tallicfan, why did you resubmit it for deletion again? Unomi (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tallicfan20, nothing has changed since the last nomination. Your arguments have no validity. This isn't about what is understood in absolute terms in Israel. Israel doesn't get to define the language used by its opponents or Wikipedia. It isn't about one source or whether there actually was a 'holocaust' or who is making these ludicrous comparisons. It's simply an WP:R compliant redirect based an alternative name. Let it go. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on POV redirects also says "unlikely to be used by searchers." Researchers are not likely to use this term if studying the Gaza War, or Operation Cast Lead. They might even use the term "Israeli War on Gaza," but not this term. You don't rely on extreme blogs for research, or Islamist websites, unless of course you're studying Islamism. Also, Bridgeplayer, show me what "media" uses this term.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do almost agree with you on the "unlikely to be used by searchers." aspect. It's not used by searchers very often.
The problem is that "unlikely to be used" isn't quantified. It should be quantified and if it were to be quantifed I would say that it should be calculated as a threshold based on (redirect view count)/(article view count) over a reasonable period of time e.g. >= 3 months. I think it would need to be based on redirect view count/article view count rather than redirect view count alone because sadly, articles like François_Barraud about an extraordinary talented much neglected painter don't get many more hits than the Gaza Holocaust redirect.
As for usage of the term, here's a random example from Global Affairs and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were very fond of the term in their press releases during the conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Global Affairs page. The page has no sources WHATSOEVER, which tells me all I need to know about it, plus the term was mentioned in an op-ed. The term has not gained widespread use, like "Gaza War," "Operation Cast Lead," or even "War on Gaza" or "Gaza Massacre." Compare:

http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/Gaza_Massacre http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/Gaza_Holocaust http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/Operation_Cast_Lead http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/Gaza_War

You can see "Gaza Massacre" had many more views than "Gaza 'holocaust'." And this was in 2009 when Operation Cast Lead was carried out. Also, don't forget that true researchers don't use Wikipedia and that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is a militant organization (some say terrorist). Now compare that with another incident which is also disputed to be a genocide, and look up http://stats.grok.se/en/2009/Darfur_Genocide, which has a lot of views, meaning researchers who do use Wikipedia use it, despite the fact its not fully considered by all to be one, or the Srebrenica Genocide redirect, which is also disputed, tho less because of the IJC. Hell, not even the Gaza War page lists the "holocaust" term at the top of the page, whereas it does list Cast Lead, Gaza War, and even the term "massacre." That said, the term "holocaust" with respect to this is not likely to be used by any serious researchers, and thus should be deleted.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep. Since this appears to have survived a previous RfD which Tallicfan20 also initiated, it makes absolutly no sense for him to be nominating it again. He's obviously trying to push a POINT or fight a BATTLE, which is obviously not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Actually, this whole discussion makes me think we should have a rule that if a page and/or redirect is nominated for deletion by a user, and it survives, the same user cannot nominate it again. I'm going to propose this policy change over at AN now, actually. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No change in circumstances since the last nomination closed as keep, and the argument in this nomination is unconvincing. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being considered, if anything the title should be Hamas Gaza terrorist attacks.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about a redirect that redirects people from the non-neutral search term Gaza Holocaust to the WP:NAME compliant article Gaza War about Operation Cast Lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 21 August 2010 (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/2010_August_17&oldid=1148048115"