Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 3, 2014.

Israeli child killing[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 Deleted per WP:CSD#G7. Speedy deleted per author request and no keep arguments. Chillum 16:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this did so to make a point in a separate deletion discussion when it was suggested that such a redirect would be absurd. As for policy it is a needlessly POV search term and somewhat implausible. Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Sorry to cause the administrative nightmare. I will desist from such activity. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfrankbalm: If you don't have a reason for keeping the redirect, you can request it be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria G7. Would you be okay with that? Ivanvector (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the term itself as particularly POV, more that it's extremely ambiguous: does "Israeli" mean ancient or modern, and does "children" mean those who have not reached adulthood, or offspring generally? Is it killing of children or by them? It could easily refer to the Massacre of the Innocents. While a DAB is possible, I think that would be a bad idea that would create more problems than it solved. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Speedy deletion is quite fine, if you think about it a bit (the entry of a non-politically correct search term brings you to a more NPOV entry)--Lfrankblam (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and WP:RNEUTRAL has some guidance on POV-titled redirects. I haven't reviewed this topic in-depth so I don't know if there are mainstream sources using this term to refer to this subject, but if they do then this is a valid redirect. For example, there are a number of editors arguing for keeping the Palestinian stone-throwing article because it's referred to in multiple reliable sources. I don't think that the same is true here, or it's too vague for us to say that it refers to this subject specifically. The article is broadly about conditions for children (minors) living through the conflict, whereas the redirect makes it sound like a one-sided massacre. Ivanvector (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. I am not sure how to close this debate but I have speedy deleted the redirect per author request[1]. Chillum 16:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean you don't know technically how (see Template:Rfd top etc) or that the consensus is unclear? Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody argued for keep and the author requested deletion then it is not a question of consensus. It was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. I have not closed an RfD before. I will read the instructions. Chillum 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paranda music[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. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be a redlink. The Garifuna music article doesn't have any information about paranda, and Garifuna music is a very broad category (all music performed by the Garifuna culture). It would be like redirecting rockabilly to American music. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. The second sentence of Garifuna music reads: "The two main garifuna genres are punta and paranda." We don't have a page on paranda music, so someone coming here looking for it could be directed to the article which it is a subgenre of (apparently, Garifuna) or they could be directed nowhere. Ivanvector (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paranda refers to the town rather than the music genre. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lenticel, WP:RFD#DELETE #2, "The redirect might cause confusion". Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed at target; I think the value of sending readers to what information we do have outweighs the potential value of redlinking to encourage creation. Better to naturally grow the target article and split when it's ready. WilyD 10:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point, but I think the pipe in the article is unhelpful; better to have it plain as "paranda music" or better as paranda music. If it was piped solely to avoid it being bot-corrected under WP:RFD#DELETE #7 "it redirects to itself", perhaps a {{bots|deny=all}} would do? But that seems drastic. Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would certainly remove the link in the article, yes. WilyD 14:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Paranda is a city in India, Paranda music is (apparently) a subgenre of Latin American music (as is Garifuna). They are not related to each other. Whatever happens with this redirect, the text in the Garifuna article should not link to the Indian city. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better solution would be hatnotes, i.e. ""Paranda music" redirects here. For the Indian city, see...." Since the link in the article makes a circular redirect, the bluelink should just be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya[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 deleted by ThaddeusB. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was previously nominated but the discussion doesn't seem to have been added to the RfD log at all, and it was sitting open. I removed the notice and am re-nominating, although no reason seems to have been given for the original nomination. Ivanvector (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as re-nominator. If the translation is valid then I see no reason to delete, but I don't speak Swahili. Ivanvector (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC
  • Delete per WP:FORRED, WP:DELETE #8, WP:ENGLISH. Subject is not about Swahili language, culture or people.
I don't speak Swahili either, but Google Translate has it as Coastal Swahili "Wreak havoc against the Jews of Europe" but it has no translation for the English word "holocaust". The translation suggests to me that it is translated as a whole phrase (from a speech?) rather than words individually. I considered Pogrom and Definitions of Pogrom as alternative targets.
The Kiswahili sw:Maangamizi makuu dhidi ya Wayahudi wa Ulaya (this exact phrase) is the Interwiki link for en:The Holocaust.
As for alternatives, African holocaust redirects to Maafa, a different thing. Globse's dictionary translates "holocaust" to Coastal Swahili [mteketeo] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) or [[[mteketezo]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), neither of which have articles in English WP nor in Kiswahili WP. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for; I don't see any reason for deletion, nor have any been presented. WilyD 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which readers? What content? Gets < 1 hit/day, no content on this term at target.
I presented three reasons (I admit, I said WP:DELETE when I meant WP:RFD#DELETE). WP:UEIA (in WP:ENGLISH) could trump it, but there are no footnotes or separate sections to discuss names in other languages. Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no content on the term in loads of articles; people are generally more interested in the subject than in why something is named what it is (especially in such obvious cases). Otherwise, your delete vote contains no reason(s) for the deletion of these redirect. WilyD 15:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "obvious" that people would search for this? The stats say otherwise. Why wouldn't they search in Kiswahili? Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was obvious people would search for this; I realise your delete argument relies on misrepresenting facts, but it's not a good idea to misrepresent a statement you're replying to. I wrote it was obvious that most people aren't search "Wreak havoc against the Jews of Europe" to try and understand the etymology of the name, but rather to learn about the event (while in other cases, there might some of the former, searching Los Angeles Lakers to understand where that name comes from is not wholly implausible, though I still expect it's a small minority of readers). WilyD 11:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to misrepresent you, please accept my genuine apology that you feel I have done so. It still seems an unlikely search term in English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you mean by unlikely. It's going to be searched, though it's not going to be the most likely search term (presumably Holocaust or The Holocaust or something like that will). There's no reason for us to be deliberately unhelpful to those who do search for the term, since there's no upside to deletion.
  • Delete because this is the English Wikipedia. Anyone searching this phrase is looking for something written in Swahili. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a weird and almost certainly false assertion. It's possible someone searching for this phrase in looking for something in Swahili (in which case, directing them to where they can find the interwiki link to Swahili is the best we can do for them). Some Swahili/English bilingual people might not be aware there's a Swahili Wikipedia. It's more probable (I think) that someone reading English Wikipedia is looking for English content, but is a little unfamiliar with the subject (hence why they'd want to read about it in an encyclopaedia). In practice, English Wikipedia's better coverage motivates a lot of (2nd+) language speakers to come here looking for content. Ideally, we'd rope them in to being involved, and they'd get enthusiastic about improving their native language version. But they're probably not going to keen to get involved with Wikipedia when the community here greats them with a big fuck you. WilyD 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Paki in uk[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 the redirect has already been speedily deleted by The Anome per criteria G10. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. NeilN talk to me 15:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely search term. Note I just blocked the creator of this redirect as a vandalism only account and not being here to create an encyclopedia. Chillum 15:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_3&oldid=1050183464"