Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2010

Gaza flotilla massacre[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 no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV titled redirects. Close to G10, IMHO, but not quite there. But still... All three were blanked by an IP and I reverted the blanking, but I agree that the redirects are POV and inappropriate as they are. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You say this is a "plausible" search term without giving proof for their plausibleness. Your argument falls into WP:GHITS, which is an invalid reason, as google hits should be backed up by reliable sources. Also see wp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given I made two out of three of these you should have mentioned this deletion request on my talk page.
On the redirects themselves keep at least Gaza flotilla massacre as it seems to be in reasonable use - and just because the redirect title isn't NPOV doesn't mean it isn't useful. With regards to the latest addition keep Mavi Marmara Massacre as well as it seems to be getting a reasonable amount of traffic. And per WP:RNEUTRAL its in use by Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror which seems to be fairly reliable (source) - they are mentioned in the BBC's Sri Lanka country profile prominently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can clearly see that this article is under category "Opinions", thus dubiously reliable and non-NPOV. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry. My first RFD in a long, long time, and I did it manually because of the multiple-redirect nature. I'm used to doing deletions via scripts, which also handle the notifications automagically. While doing this one manually, such totally slipped my mind. Again, I'm sorry. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Gaza flotilla massacre" is a redundant redirect (see my comment below) and all the redirects are non-neutral. They imply that the 9 deaths on The Gaza flotilla resulted from a massacre by the IDF, when the truth is quite the contrary in that that it was reportedly an act of self defense against the intentions of the activists to massacre the IDF soldiers. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we also use the redirect "Gaza massacre" to the "Gaza War" article, which could also be called POV. Doing as Maashatra11 suggests and only go by the IDF claims, would in reality be POV.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza massacre is seemingly kept because it is an allegedly common name in the Arab world for the Gaza war. It doesn't mean that "Gaza flotilla massacre" is also a common name in the Arab world for the flotilla raid.
    If I'm wrong in my preposition that it isn't common/popular wording, please include the phrase "Gaza flotilla massacre" in the Gaza flotilla raid article, just like "Gaza massacre" is incorporated in the lead of the Gaza war article. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also Keep Mavi Marmara Massacre - valid search term; no basis in policy for deletion Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - POV, but in use. These are phrases that have been used to refer to this event, and as such are plausible search terms; POV isn't usually a good enough reason to delete a redirect that might be useful. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You say these are "plausible" search terms "that have been used to refer to this event" without giving proof for their plausibleness. See wp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a reliable third-party source has been provided for the final one - and the Sri Lankans aren't even a muslim country. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice any reliable third-party source here. Please clarify what you are talking about. And Which Sr Lankans?? You're puzzling me. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/12233.html -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess they account as reliable. Anyway "2010 Gaza flotilla massacre" and "2010 Gaza massacre" don't seem to be very plausible. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also The Daily Telegraph refers to the Gaza Flotilla Massacre here. I agree, as stated above, that 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre" and "2010 Gaza massacre" are not plausible and should be deleted. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you, notwithstanding the fact that these are clear violations of wp:NPV. Maashatra11 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:CANADIAN COMMUNITES[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled, unused (no incoming links and 0 pageviews in most months), and unlikely to be used. Also, it is quite long for a shortcut and could be replaced by alternatives, such as WP:CANCOM (WP:WCC and WP:WPCC are already taken). (Redirect creator notified using Template:RFDNote) -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lsit of evangelion albums[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an implausible typo receiving close to zero hits per month. I assume an article was created under this name and subsequently moved. Airplaneman ✈ 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - recently created redirect and not a particularly plausible typo. No harm in deleting. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible and unnecessary. Do we have an opinion on whether April 17 is within the scope of "recently created" per CSD R3?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - FWIW the test I apply is whether it has been around long enough to be widely picked up by the mirrors. As can be seen here, this one hasn't. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of resignations[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 speedily converted to a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by recent page move. This title is extremely vague and does not necessarily correlate to the redirect target. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Convert to a disambiguation page - it seems like "list of resignations" would be a much more common search term than "list of resignations of notable government figures". It doesn't seem misleading to me, at least - this is the kind of page I'd expect a "list of resignations" search to lead me to. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: vote changed to "convert to a disambiguation page" per Bridgeplayer's work. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we don't have any other lists of resignations... –xenotalk 16:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No longer true after Bridgeplayer's moves below - changing !vote to convert to dab page and suggest speedy closure. –xenotalk 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page - ermm; I've gone and done it. It increases its utility whilst dealing with the concern of the nominator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination in light of conversion to dab page by Bridgeplayer. Someone please speedy close. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Google tests[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Featured topics[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dead-end articles[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator as WP:R#DELETE #6. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no incoming links other than those related to this RFD so this can be deleted without harm. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Article spam[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 Spamdexing. NAC. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 08:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget, as Bridgeplayer said, works as well (actually, better). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Spamdexing - this redirect gets a decent amount of traffic so it's obviously useful. The retarget points to a page that will be helpful to searchers and, since Wikipedia:Spam is given as a hat note, it will also be working for those looking for the project page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Bridgeplayer.--Lenticel (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Junpei Morita[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be deleted as it only redirects to a single role that this person has worked on. For example, Megumi Takamoto used to redirect to the Winry Rockbell article, but it was deleted. Geg (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't like targeting marginal people at individual roles. Firstly, when they have multiple roles, which one do you point to?; for example why not target this guy at GoGo Sentai Boukenger? Secondly, the redirect inhibits article creation. Better to have a red link that will encourage editors to assess notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think actors should not be redirected to their roles, full stop. Either an article on the person exists or it doesn't, but a redirect is not a helpful solution. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 23 June 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_June_18&oldid=1207832231"