Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2010

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This term is only used by political ideologues, which include Islamist sympathizers and radical leftists. By allowing it to redirect like this, Wikipedia almost endorses this POV. Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - FWIW The term, though possible misinterpreted, has been ascribed, also, to an Israeli minister. [1][2]. It has also been used here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but in the 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?" Tallicfan20 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects 'Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy....Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion.' Gaza Holocaust was a term commonly used. It's validity isn't our business. Redirects simply get people to the article that does have a policy compliant neutral name no matter whether they are political ideologues, Islamist sympathizers or radical leftists. Tallicfan20, can you try a bit harder to comply with the Discretionary sanctions ? Compliance is mandatory and it's not that difficult. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not seeing a good reason for deletion. Redirects are simply a way for readers to find information that they are seeking since they will often be unaware of the exact page title. They do not endorse a POV or support any particular position. The tests that I apply are - are they foreseeable search terms; do they take the reader to a page that they are likely to be seeking? This redirect passes both tests. For example, someone who has read The Times article, is likely to search on this term. There are a number of other sources that might prompt someone to search on this formulation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not because I support use of the term... - If we delete this redirect, we endorse one POV. But if we delete it, it's as good as saying that that point of view isn't valid, etc., which is as good as endorsing the opposite point of view. Keeping it would be easier--- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 05:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TV infobox[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 both. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects with no incoming links or transclusions. Svick (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - recent creations and there appears no sound reason for these cross-namespace redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FWSE[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 replace with disambiguation page. Peter 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a disambiguation page here, not a redirect. FWSE does not only refer to "Favourite Web Search Engine" but also to:

  • Frequency-Wavenumber Spectrum Estimation
  • Fast Wide Single Ended - term used in describing SCSI implementation
  • Fixed Wing Single Engine aircraft


Claritas (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am fine with a disambiguation page if the terms can be found within existing pages. What we must avoid is one blue link and three red links. Perhaps someone could draft a page for consideration? Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply a rough draft is up at the redirect, underneath the existing content 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Moonlight Hours EP[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single, not an ep —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a plausible search term. Claritas (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a number of Ghits here so this is a foreseeable search term. I notice that there are several incoming links and it would be helpful if nominators could fix such links before asking for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. I updated all incoming links from articles, and the Google results are reduced dramatically by excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:02, 29 May 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_May_19&oldid=1079431747"