Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2014.

Pékin[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 Pekin. Deletion has garnered no support and this represents the consensus target. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for French. - TheChampionMan1234 23:56, 4 September 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.

Frankreich[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially German. - TheChampionMan1234 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Can you be more clear in your explanation? Before you mention it, WP:FORRED is just an essay, not a rule, and it is not applicable here anyway. Olivier (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alsace and Lorraine (region) are in France -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete German-language redirects to Alsace and Lorraine topics are fine, since those areas have been German. (Compare, for example, to Danzig.) But occupation aside, France as a whole isn't German, and "Frankreich" wouldn't have any official usage in France. And again, I think Olivier is putting way too much stock in one discussion from three years ago that stands in direct opposition to clearer, more recent consensus on such redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely search term. The fact that the Academie francaise might frown on it does not mean we should. It is used readily enough in English in Mein Kampf, in the Ford translation, for example. France hasn't been a kingdom since, er, about 1789. But it is a common enough word in English, I'd say. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 13 September 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.

FRance[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 'FRance' and retarget 'Franc3' to France 3. The question of plausibility is only relevant in the case of recently created redirects. In this case the redirects are nearly 10 years and over 3 years old respectively. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". No suggestion of harm has been made nor has any other policy-compliant reason for deletion been adduced. The destination of 'Franc3' has attracted little comment, so it can be relisted if anyone feels strongly that the retarget is wrong. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEep. FRance is a very common typo. Olivier (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why the hell do you want to delete a non-harmful redirect that gets ten thousand views per day on average!? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salvidrim: stats.grok.se is case insensitive, so all this is telling us is that France itself gets that many views. The typo is not that common. There's a newer, less well publicized tool at wmflabs that is case sensitive, though, which can be accessed at [http ://tools.wmflabs.org/wikiviewstats/ ]. I don't see a way to directly link to results, but it showed 30 hits in August, omitting August 1 for some reason.
And the links for Franc3 weren't set up correctly. I've fixed them, so you can now see that one had seven views last month. I don't think either of these should be deleted, but the statistics as presented by default were pretty misleading. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks for the rectifiction; I still think double-caps is a common enough typo to justify keeping FRance, and Franc3 to France 3 seems like a reasonable, non-harmful suggestion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment stats.grok.se apparently has some bugs, since it also claims that the non-existent FRAnce gets ten thousand views per day [1]. (That said, these are indeed plausible typos.) 61.10.165.33 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't possibly imagine how they can be plausible typos, they are not all caps, which is plausible, nor are they something like Gremany either, and furthermore, the second one in this nomination looks like pure leetspeak to me. - TheChampionMan1234 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for FRance. You have no idea how many times I "double cap" in a day. When you type fast it is possible your "letter finger" click for the second letter before your "Shift finger" lifts off the Shift key. Franc3 not so much. 3 and e can be deemed close on QWERTY but not that close IMO. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 06:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "FRance" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 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.

Jaws 19[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 Jaws: The Revenge#Legacy. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point to this redirect. Jaws 19 is not mentioned even once in the target article and there are no incoming links to this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Jaws 19 is seen in the film in question. Although, a sentence or two regarding Jaws 19, maybe in the Plot section or perhaps the Production section, should be added to the article as well.-- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is why redirects should be allowed to carry documentation when needed. "Jaws 19" is a scene featuring a fictional film within the film's 2015, so a viable search term -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but don't mention it in the article, that is minutia that doesn't belong. This discussion will be the "documentation" when it closes. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. Readers should not be required to delve into project space to find out why a redirect's title points where it does: it should be apparent from the redirect itself and from the target article's content. Either delete the redirect or add this information to the article. — Keφr 17:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jaws: The Revenge#Legacy where the term is explained. Sorry, but I see no basis on which the present target can be kept. If a reader has heard or seen the term taking them to a page where there is no mention of any version of Jaws would just leave them baffled and that is the mark of a really bad redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That also seems reasonable. — Keφr 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes! Retarget to Jaws: The Revenge#Legacy. Perfect target for this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a BTW, often adding something relevant to the target is a good solution. However, here the editors of the target have been consistently removing plot additions to keep the plot short. In this case, therefore, if the editors of that article don't consider the reference to Jaws 19 sufficiently important it will just come out again. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per The Whispering Wind. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed, to provide context to the link. bd2412 T 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
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.

Fountainhead[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. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be either redirecting to Fountainhead (disambiguation) or alternatively move the dab into base position at Fountainhead. Per WP:THE In ictu oculi (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with no change. I don't know why WP:THE is invoked in the nomination, when it says nothing about redirects. This is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. Here are the 90-day traffic stats for the current target, the proposed target (the dab page), and all the dabs listed therein:
In case it isn't clear, the current target gets about 3 times as much traffic as all the alternatives combined. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with disambiguation page. The usage stats do not indicate that people searching for "The Fountainhead" use "Fountainhead". We disambiguate using "The" because of that fact. (We also use that fact to segregate the many subjects that in natural speech carry "the" but don't do so with articles in Wikipedia, should all have cleared the "The" title variations instead of allowing alternate topics to occupy such titles) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, Ilan Kidron links to Fountainhead; can anyone disambiguate this? Though I suspect it's just another red-link band he's been a member of.
And, here I unlinked "fountainhead" as an overlink. So, are concrete or carved rock lions with water flowing out of their mouths called fountainheads or fountain heads?
Fountainhead has been viewed 1478 times in the last 90 days. It may be difficult to determine what those folks are looking for. The vast majority looking for the novel and film seem to search on "The". How would this topic be indexed? Under "The Fountainhead", or "Fountainhead, The"? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • More mixed signals: Google search shows the novel to be clear primary topic, but Ngrams show the generic word is primary. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Capital "Fountianhead" clearly tracks—and leads "The Fountainhead".
Keep with no change. Don't fix what's not broken; this redirect has been stable for ten years. The rationale for moving it needs to be more convincing. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the "The" (e.g., reverse the redirect or DAB it). Very much an outside bet, but baptismal font or fount of honour might do, but I am not recommending them. It is patently NOT WP:NOTBROKEN — Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Article_titles specifically says not to start article titles with "The". Ten years ago we did lots of things which we would not do now – and on Wikipedia, too. I don't see longevity being a reason to argue against policy. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Fountainhead is the title of a novel, which is an explicitly stated exception to starting article titles with 'The'. Also, the generic meaning of the word 'fountainhead' is the source or origin of something, not a font or fountain. --RL0919 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, DAB it then. It's also the name of a boozer in Cambridge. That does not make it WP:PRIMARY, but I think you are right, make The Fountainhead primary and DAB the rest at Fountainhead (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Note that the film by this name is merely an adaptation of the book, and therefore lends to the primacy of the book. bd2412 T 21:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
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.

Ligue Nationale de Basket (Switzerland) team redirects[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. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. These two redirects represent the names of teams in the league (the redirect target), but the target article doesn't describe the referenced teams in the least. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 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.

États-Unis d'Amérique[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially French/German, whatever... - TheChampionMan1234 03:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the French, it has some legal standing in Louisiana, where they've adopted bilingual traffic signge recently. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk)
  • Comment is this Pennsylvanisch and also German? Or is it not Pennsylvanisch at all? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE only the first of these listed redirects was tagged. I have now tagged the others and informed the creators. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Verenigde State van Amerika and Verenigde State were kept at RfD when discussed in 2011: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the French and German. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Verenigde State van Amerika. Olivier (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Olivier's link, and the redirect does meet any reason for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the French ones, as there's some scattered official usage in the US. Delete the German ones, as the US is not a German topic. I'm not convinced that a discussion from three years ago should be given more weight than the dozens of WP:FORRED-backed deletions that have taken place more recently. Foreign-language redirects can be harmful, as I've opined at WT:FORRED. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I understand it, the United States has no official language. I lived in Texas for a bit, and Spanish was common there: I travel(l)ed to New Orleans every Mardi Gras and spoke some French but it is very different from French French or Canadian French: and no more "official" than English. Perhaps at a state or county level it has official recognition, but I don't think at federal level? For example, England has no official language (although Wales has two). I was taught French French, and it was just "États-Unis"; is it really necessary to disambiguate with the "d'Amérique"? But WP is WP:NOT a translation dictionary, anyway. The Dutch and others have no place in EN:WP, they belong in NL:WP and so on. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Louisianan Creole is not French. Louisianan French is French. In Louisiana, the southern parishes have limited French legal status recognition. Bobby Jindal even signed a law concerning French language traffic signage and which is now being rolled out. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It helps those unfamiliar with the English language or with elementary English language skills. Redirects to an article that may be frequented by these types of users. Probably (?) more helpful than harmful. I think I'd find it helpful, personally, but that's a sample size of one. Less-used redirects I would not oppose deletion.--Porsche997SBS (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all of them to Names of the United States. États-Unis d'Amérique, Verenigde State van Amerika, etc. are themselves part of the topic of this article. Sure, they're not good redirects to the USA article, but since the Names article is about foreign names themselves, they're highly relevant to it. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 October 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.

Bandarikin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 22#Bandarikin

Mihapjungguk[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. In contrast to Bandarikin (formerly above, now relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 22#Barnarikin) the reasons why this is not a useful search term have been elucidated and not refuted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not affiliated to romanised Korean or Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:34, 4 September 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.

Palestinian 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 Delete': 1) Per WP:RFD#DELETE criteria #3; 2) Per Nyttend because the redirect means what any person wants it to mean—there is simply no good target for it. Ruslik_Zero 20:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Palestinian Holocaust" is pure propaganda: non-academic, non-professional, and non-widely-accepted term. (The word "Holocaust" does not even appear once on the 1948 Palestinian exodus page.) In light of this, I think the redirect page should be deleted. (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 01:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Previous discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 18#Palestinian Holocaust → Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 21#Palestinian Holocaust. --RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RL0919's links, usage shown outside of Wikipedia to refer to this topic. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Results of previous debates were "No consensus" (although I counted more "Delete"s than "Keep"s). Term is heavily loaded, only used by antisemites and people who seek to delegitimize the Holocaust and the State of Israel simultaneously. By this logic, the word "Zionazi" should redirect to "Zionism", and "Israhell" (and "I$rahell") should redirect to "Israel". If you are willing to create these three redirects and honestly think that doesn't violate POV, I will concede. Otherwise, I will not. This term is entirely politically motivated, and has no place on Wikipedia. -(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 22:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Most of that is WP:WAX and so irrelevant. Please see WP:RNEUTRAL for an explanation of why redirects do not need to be neutral. It doesn't matter who uses a term, or why they use it, just that people use it to find content on Wikipedia. RfDs are not closed based on a headcount but on the strength of discussion. In this case nothing appears to have changed since the last discussion, so there is no benefit in deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Please tell me why "Zionazi" and "Israhell" should not be redirect articles. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 03:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no opinion on them without having researched them. They are entirely irrelevant to whether "Palestinian Holocoaust" should be a redirect though (please read WP:WAX). "Palestinian Holocaust" is a plausible search term for all the reasons outlined in the previous discussion, specifically it is used. If "Zionazi" and "Israhell" are used in the same manner to consistently refer to a particular topic then they should be redirects, if they are not then they probably should not be, but this discussion is not about them. Thryduulf (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps I am wrong here, but as per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-neutral_but_common_names, I think the term "Palestinian Holocaust" violates 2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious ....the more obvious encyclopedic alternative is Nakba ("tragedy"), which does redirect, as I think it should. "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess"...someone's first guest is going to be Nakba, not "Palestinian Holocaust".
          • While I think my point about the "Israhell" redirect page may be irrelevant via WP:WAX, the term "Zionazi" is relevant to the discussion, because you can't have a Holocaust without Nazis. Both terms are the same non-encyclopedic nonsense that I don't think has demonstrated enough use to merit a redirect. (Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 03:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can certainly have a holocaust without Nazis. A nuclear holocaust, for example. It just means "all burnt" (roughly). It seems a likely search term to me. I think the word itself is a bit of a neologism, it was only coined in 1944 I think (but I haven't a good etymological dictionary on me). Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps retarget to British Palestine? But I'm inclined to leave it where it stands. stet. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it should target to British Palestine. True, you can have a Holocaust without Nazis, but it stands to reason that a "Palestinian Holocaust" would imply that Zionist Jews are the Nazis or some other type of aggressors. The ADL seems to characterize this type of inflammatory language as hate speech. But I know that redirects need not be neutral, as per WP:RNEUTRAL.
But additionally, and more importantly, I can find no real clear consensus of what exactly is meant by the "Palestinian Holocaust". Is it the 1948 Palestinian exodus? Is it Operation Cast Lead? Is it the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict? Is it the present Israeli occupation of Palestine itself? "Palestinian Holocaust" has been applied to all of these by extremists. It is not an "first guess" term, "encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" (see above), and I've yet to see a concrete definition, or why it should redirect to any particular page. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for disambiguation, not deletion. If (popular and or reliable) sources use or discuss the term (or report or quote use of the term by others) then it is a useful search term. If the term is used to refer to multiple events, and one of those uses is not primary, then the term should be a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really just because it's vague, per Moshe above. Probably because of the emotionally charged terminology, this term gets deployed frequently to various events concerning the Palestinians. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Incredibly offensive. This wins the Godwin's law award. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether a redirect is offensive or not is completely irrelevant to whether it should be kept or not - see WP:RNEUTRAL. As for Godwin's law, discussions actually concerning Hitler or the Nazis are excluded (for obvious reasons), and as this term is used to create an emotional reference an event intimately related to both, relevant mentions (Which is all I see here) are perfectly fine. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We risk getting off topic here, and Godwin's law is frequently misapplied, but I think the point is that this term does not involve Hitler or the Nazis. The point is to analogize Israel with them. You're right, of course, that offensive redirects aren't necessarily deleted (cf. my delete vote, which is based on a completely different rationale), but one definitely is offensive. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I planned to make an argument to keep because it was commonly getting used for this topic, but even a quick Google search reveals that the phrase is used for tons of different topics; in the first ten hits, I get something about Israeli offensives in Gaza, something about "IF AMERICANS KNEW WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT ISRAEL/PALESTINE", something that's not clear at http://www.shoah.org.uk, three more references (quoting Fidel Castro) to Gaza, an unspecified reference to a book at Amazon.com, two more back to Gaza, and Israelis attacking Palestinians in the West Bank. Since most of the Gaza stuff is news stories about Fidel Castro, we ought not consider the Gaza option unless we get references to other people saying the same thing. It's clear that none of the others is the primary topic (four pages, and all use the term differently), so this wouldn't be a useful redirect to any of them. Since we've discounted all five seemingly-significant options, I don't think a redirect (or a disambiguation page) would be particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 23 October 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_September_4&oldid=1138579925"