Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 10, 2016.

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth[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 List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dates of birth of each Prime Minister are not included in the article this redirect directs to. --Neve–selbert 23:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The year of their birth is listed in the second column from the right. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: The Prime minsters' dates of birth are listed on the third column from the left (party colour is 1, picture is 2), but the table is neither organised by nor sortable by their date of birth. The dates on the right are the regnal dates of the monarch the Prime Minister served under. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a redirect from a former article. After substantial and divided discussion, the article's AfD from a year ago was closed as redirect rather than delete, specifically mentioning content might be merged from page history. Whether or not that was a good close, it should not be overridden here. Since there are no incoming mainspace links, and only about 2 hits per day, it's doing no real harm. It could be retargeted to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age, which is sortable. Station1 (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age - "This table can be sorted... by name, order of office, date of birth...", and indeed it can be. This means that someone looking for a list of Prime Ministers by date of birth can find such a list at that target but not very easily at the current target which is not sortable by dob. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age Chris Troutman (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2016 (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.

Atlantis 7 (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 24#Atlantis 7 (film)

Pichkari[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. Deryck C. 11:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume these to be WP:RFOREIGN redirects. From what I can tell, a pich(a)kari is a special water gun that is used during Holi. -- Tavix (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If I understand the Holi article correctly, this is a type of water gun, so we could reasonably {{R from synonym}} the redirect and keep it. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment "Pichkari" is also an alternative name for the single species of tree in the Spathodea genus (and it is bolded in the second sentence of the article) so that is a possible target, and there is the award-winning song "Balam Pichkari" but despite lots of mentions doesn't have an article and hasn't been redlinked, but even if the article existed then I don't think it would be the primary topic for this title. Ideally though there would be an article on the water pistol-type devices (currently mentioned only in passing at Holi#History and rituals and Kumauni Holi#Chharadi. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking there could be an article written on the subject, so a deletion to encourage article creation could also be a good idea. Until then, search results can guide people to the relevant articles, including the Spathodea genus. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that search results really don't here. They are overwhelmed by the partial title match for the song, it took effort to exclude that result (using google) before I found the genus and even more searching (including within the articles) for the content we have about the pistol. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Google scholar I see a couple references that have pichkari as a term for hypodermic injections/syringes. Squeezing flower buds of Spathodea makes them squirt a yellow liquid; children like to play with them (and "squirt tree" is another English name for Spathodea). The common thread with the water gun, syringes and Spathodea is that all of them squirt. I'd guess that the water gun might be the source of the term, with syringes and Spathodea being named pichkari by association. Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2016 (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.

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 retarget to Gaza War. Not the easiest of closes, but from reading through this discussion a few times, I think this solution would satisfy the most people here. Arguments in favor for retargeting to the disambiguation page seemed to be the strongest as it has been shown to refer to multiple conflicts. As an aside, it's rare to see so much apathy in a discussion about such a controversial subject. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A 2012 RFD reached no consensus regarding this redirect. At the time it pointed to the article Gaza War, which was later moved to Gaza War (2008–09). That was the title to which this redirect pointed from then until February of this year, when it was changed to its current target by 158.169.40.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an unregistered user who remains active, and who continues to make good-faith edits in the Israeli–Arab topic area. Since this redirect hasn't been discussed in about four years, I thought it might be worth putting it up once more.

I am personally undecided (at least for now). I see the argument for the old target. I see the argument for the new target. I also see potential arguments for retargeting to Gaza War (the DAB page) or for simply deleting the redirect. What do others think? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there's some merit for the current redirect, that's really an opinion not everyone will share. There was no Gaza Holocaust so we have no article about it and I'd prefer to salt the title so we end the needless editing on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page doesn't get many views, an average of 2 hits per day, but the fact that it does get some views suggests that it's a valid search term. Also Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and WP:Wikipedia is not censored are relevant here, as is the fact that the redirect has been kept in 3 debates in the past. While I don't really care if it stays or goes, I don't see the harm in keeping it, and in the last RFD I closed, I didn't see any policy-based merits in the arguments to delete. The redirect to holocaust trivialization doesn't seem like the logical place a user would expect to end up when using a search term specifically about Gaza, so it should probably be changed back. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was originally going to !vote delete per RFD#R3, but it looks like the term has been used in WP:RS including a high-profile flap about a BBC article title. Retarget Gaza War (2008–09) as the primary topic. shoy (reactions) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the time since the original RFD it seems that the term has been also been used to refer to March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes [1] and the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict [2] (the second link also supports where it points now) and pretty much the entire Gaza–Israel conflict. It also pops for where it points now at about the same rate. I think it should be salted just so this isn't a perennial topic--Savonneux (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your conclusion does not follow from your arguments, which strongly argue in favour of disambiguation. If vandalism or edit warring is a problem then we should protect the page not delete it (we don't, and should not, do that sort of spiting our face). Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't sure if DABifying was a valid option here, hence the comment tag.--Savonneux (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Gaza War disambiguation page per Savonneux's findings and WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target explains the implications of use the term "holocaust" to describe events other than The Holocaust. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. We can add the March 2012 article and a see also or hatnote to Holocaust trivialization. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chris Troutman and Savonneux. It's clear that this term gets thrown around a lot, so it's certainly an example of Holocaust trivialization, but there's no mention of it at Gaza War (2008–09) (a failing on our part, or maybe the incident wasn't so high profile?). It's at least mentioned at the target article, so weak keep as second choice. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (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.

Long article[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, as consensus shows that this title is vague term that doesn't necessarily refer to journalism. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that might be described as a "long article" is journalism, though. Academic publications come to mind. I think it would be useful to ask whether this is what our friends at Wiktionary would call an "idiomatic phrase". Does it mean something besides "article which is long"? --BDD (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The concept of something being a "long article" is a generic label that applies in many different contexts. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too vague for a proper mainspace target, and the current target is an inappropriate cross namespace redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf; that seems to be the primary use of as seen through a Google search. Could then add a selfref hatnote to the current target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The creator, Jax 0677, was never notified of this discussion; I've done that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorthian (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete While we don't precisely follow the Wiktionary standard I alluded to above, it seems a useful yardstick in this case. I don't think has an inherent connection with journalism, and I also have doubts as to its plausibility as a search term. Perhaps journalistic usage would be a more likely destination than others, though. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2016 (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.

Integrated watchlist[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. WJBscribe (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural note: WP:G5 does not apply if other well-meaning editors have argued to keep the content, as is the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I merely offered a !vote instead of tagging it or deleting it myself. If those who want to keep it flip their !votes to speedy delete (WP:BMB, WP:DENY, etc.), then it will be safe to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, I don't see any vote from you here...? I don't think WP:G5 applies, either, as this redirect was created months before the ban.— Gorthian (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is before the second relist. Sarsaparilla was blocked in February 2008. This redirect was created in May 2010, a couple years after the block. -- Tavix (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Tavix used 5 tildes to sign his first comment. Deryck C. 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for signing my comment. I didn't even notice that after double-reading it! -- Tavix (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deryck, I may well be wrong on this, but can you point me to a policy or guideline that says keep arguments override G5? I thought, in the spirit of WP:DENY, G5 was applied pretty inflexibly. I know withdrawal works the way you described. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:REVERTBAN: If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do. So I apologise, I think we're all in agreement. It's still a valid rationale for deletion, but not sufficient to "speedy" anymore. This is similar to withdrawal (becomes a normal "keep" rationale if anyone else had already argued for change) but dissimilar to the Neelix injunction (becomes void on its own once anybody argues for "keep"). Deryck C. 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the avoidance of any doubt, I still think this should be kept despite the creator being banned. The application of G5 has always been controversial, but it has never applied to creations made before a ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks both for your replies. It sounds like I've just encountered stricter applications of G5. But Thryduulf, it looks like the sockmaster here was banned in March 2008, and this redirect was created in May 2010. Am I misreading the history, or was your comment a general one about G5 application rather than this case specifically? --BDD (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether G5 should apply regardless of the quality of the submission has been a point upon which there has been no consensus as long as I've been aware of it (and I've been an admin over a decade), so it's hardly surprising you've seen different interpretations/implementations of it. My comment about creations before a ban was based on Gorthian's comment that "this redirect was created months before the ban", I have not looked at the timeline myself and my view that this is worth keeping is independent of the timeline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My interpretation of the WP:G5 criterion would seem to imply that there is consensus for this. The only pages created by a blocked/banned user that shouldn't be deleted include: those with significant edits from others, transcluded templates and useful categories. There is not, however, an exception for "quality." In fact, that would seem to contradict the banning policy, which states that "bans apply to all editing, good or bad." If you feel there should be an exception for "quality," I'd recommend that you propose a change to G5 and WP:BAN. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Put at it's most simple, there is a consensus that pages created by banned users may be speedily deleted, but no consensus that they must. No other speedy deletion criterion imposes a requirement to delete. Some people feel that all pages that meet the G5 criterion should be deleted, but others (including me) think that pages which improve the encyclopaedia should not be deleted simply because of the author. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps as an application of WP:IAR, your argument could work since you feel that it benefits the encyclopedia. However, I think the banning policy makes it clear that banned uses are not allowed to contribute and they deserve no credits for their work, good or bad. If there's a "good" contribution by a banned user, then someone in good standing should be the one to create it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You can call it IAR if you wish, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is no consensus on how strictly either G5 or the banning policy should be applied in practice in every circumstance. This debate has been going on for at least 10 years (and probably longer) so we are not going to resolve it here. You just need to accept that your view is not universally held. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not trying to solve a 10 year debate, but rather offering evidence and arguments to support my side, and you are doing the same. I'm not going to get you to change your beliefs on the matter and you probably won't be able to sway me either. What matters here is that we both present our cases for the closer and those who will participate behind us, so they can read our cases and figure for themselves which is stronger. It's been fun debating you, I've enjoyed it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Watchlist per WP:CNR. This comes up in the search dropdown when readers are trying to find actual articles (e.g. Integrated writing environment. Casual readers should not just be thrown into the WP: namespace 109.159.41.193 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CNR. Confusing for casual readers and doesn't serve much of a purpose even for experienced editors. — JFG talk 03:16, 29 August 2016 (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.

Hindi language movement[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more of the same, already blocked author, who created dozens of articles and redirects, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia. This topic just simply does not exist Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget - This is a genuine topic, even though the target page unfortunately has nothing about it. We can keep it as it is in the hope that somebody will create the content. Agree with Thruyduulf below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC), updated Kautilya3 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hindi-Urdu controversy#Hindi and Urdu movements where there is content about historic Hindi language movements. Any content about present day movements can be added there (the article lead describes the controveresy as "ongoing" but has very little detail of anything post 1950". Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an appropriate target like Hindi-Urdu controversy per the above. Possibly a useful search term. Mar4d (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2016 (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.

Brahui nationalism[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article as created asserted that there is/was an insurgency movement without any source material. The current redirect seemingly equates Brahui nationalism with Brahui people (without any material in that article to support the existence of a nationalist insurgency). Neither of these options is supportable or referenced. Delete for (;;) (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while there isn't any such thing as a Brahui insurgency, nationalism could evoke various concepts (such as language, political activism etc.) However, I'd still go with delete as we have the issue of verifiability. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I found precisely 4 Google hits for the term, including this page. It is basically a hoax. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2016 (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.

Legal status of of South Tibet[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically incorrect, besides a host of other problems regarding redirects created by the user. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was an unambiguous (or even mostly unambiguous) region known as "South Tibet" that had a legal status (disputed or otherwise) then this would be a completely appropriate redirect. However, the target article indicates that the term is vague and ambiguous and, in almost all definitions, covers regions with various different legal statuses the reader is not educated by this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (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.

Indian annexed Kashmir[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The author is trying to create a walled garden or redirect entirely around the existing articles on this topic. There are multiple ones already up for WP:A10.--Savonneux (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kashmir dispute. WP:RNEUTRAL clearly states that redirects do not have to be neutral, but that non-neutral terms should redirect to NPOV articles at neutral titles. In this case there is a notable POV that India has annexed (part of) Kashmir, and thus this is a useful search term that should redirect somewhere and the article about the dispute seems the best place. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards Thryduulf's position here. I know we're generally supposed to comment on content rather than contributor, but there's ample evidence for rejecting en masse a user's contributions, even if it means sweeping away some ones that might be ok. We've seen that here at RfD—fellow whose name rhymes with "Shpeelix". --BDD (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like we have a G5 on our hands. Will give the deleting admin a few minutes before I start procedural closes... --BDD (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2016 (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.

Occupied Sikkim[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because it's POV (see WP:RNEUTRAL). The problem is that there is essentially no information I can find that would educate readers who were looking for this title, Sikkim#Recent history includes the sentence "Chinese officials were in a quandary on this issue, as any protests to India would mean an explicit endorsement of India's governance of Sikkim, which China still recognised as an independent state occupied by India." which provides a hint as to who might be considered to be occupying it, but there is nothing more in History of Sikkim which would help either. Google searches for the exact phrase return only adjectival uses of "occupied" (other than this page, and the Simple English Wikipedia article about Sikkim so it is not a good search term, even if there were information to point the redirect to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2016 (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.

Occupied Khalistan[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

his redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom.--Savonneux (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Khalistan movement (where Khalistan redirects). WP:RNEUTRAL clearly states that redirects from non-neutral terms are acceptable if there is somewhere neutral to point them. In this case the term does get used, including in a couple of sources that might be reliable (I haven't looked in detail) but someone encountering this term will not find any information to educate them about what it means at the current target where the word "Khalistan" never appears. The Khalistan movement doesn't use the phrase "occupied Khalistan" anywhere but someone reading the page will be educated about where Khalistan is and why some people consider it occupied territory. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2016 (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.

International recognition of East Pakistan as Bangla-desh[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because of POV concerns (see WP:RNEUTRAL) but because it is not a useful redirect. Specifically, I can find no uses at all of a hyphenated "Bangla-desh". "Bangla Desh" is a plausible misspelling in English, the correct spelling in Catalan and the name of a song by George Harrison, but I'm finding nothing for the country. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (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.

Recognition of East Bengal as an Independent polity[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed as above. KDS4444 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being POV and being "unnecessary" are not reasons in themselves to delete redirects (see WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:R#DELETE), but this is a very obscure search term with random capitalisation and East Bengal, while geographically similar, is not the same as Bangladesh, which all add up to a redirect that is not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (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.

Occupied South Tibet[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV term that occurs in no WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because it's POV (see WP:RNEUTRAL), but because "South Tibet" is such a vague term that "occupied South Tibet" could refer to several different places depending on your point of view - google searches find about equal occurrences of "Indian occupied"/"India-Occupied" and "China-Occupied" (the latter clearly not relating to the current target) meaning there is no primary topic. If the areas referred to were unambiguous and there was sourced content at the target articles a disambiguation page might be appropriate, but neither condition is met. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (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.

Legal status of Occupied Kashmir[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kashmir dispute. Per WP:RNEUTRAL non-neutral redirects are fine, and this seems like a useful search term so the question is which target is the best and I think the general article on the dispute is slightly better than the current one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2016 (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.

Political status of Occupied Kashmir[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect clearly fails WP:NPOV. The author of this page created dozens of articles, failing WP:NPOV in the first day in Wikipedia Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all this author's WP:NPOV redirects. for (;;) (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kashmir dispute. There are plenty of other "Political status of" articles so this is clearly a useful search term (see WP:RNEUTRAL), but whether "Occupied Kashmir" refers the the Indian or Pakistani administered portions is dependent on your POV so redirecting to one or the other is not appropriate. I think the general Kashmir dispute article is probably the best target but there may be a more specific one. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2016 (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.

Category:Azad Jammu and Kashmir[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 deleted by DrKay (G5). --BDD (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, newly created category. The author is creating WP:NPOV material without regard to what already exists. for (;;) (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are no POV issues with this redirect, as this is the official name for the territory commonly known as Azad Kashmir, so it is quite likely that people will expect the category to be at this name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful redirect considering that Azad Jammu and Kashmir is the extended official name of Azad Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No problems with this one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2016 (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.

룦래빝[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On today's menu of probable nonsense we are specializing in redirects to disambiguation or set index pages. None of the targets have any connections with Korea or Korean, so these need to be deleted per WP:RFFL. — Gorthian (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Crescent Communities[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 per WP:CSD#G1 and WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No use about this page. 333-blue 03:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your RFD tag was about 3 minutes ahead of the speedy-deletion tag that's now there. How does this work? — Gorthian (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorthian: If the page is ultimately deleted,then this RFD discussion will become moot; if that happens, then this discussion can be closed at that time. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2016 (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.

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728[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) 10:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a retitled page, but the specificity of title combined with the huge timespan makes this not a likely search term or target, and nothing in mainspace links to it. I think we can safely get rid of it. MSJapan (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, I don't see how it would be confusing to use the actual article title in the hatnote there, as the entire page is only concerned with the one Bach. But the hatnote template is more flexible than you may realize. You can add |label= to specify whatever text you want to show in {{see also}}, sort of like piping a link. Or use {{see also2}}, which is designed to take an actual piped link as a parameter. There's no need to keep the redirect around just to use as a link. — Gorthian (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to show "Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728". I want the same to show up on mouseover. If you know better, please go ahead and write these Bach-related articles. Tx for showing possibilities, but let's apply Occam's rasor here: why devise a complicated system, when the simple one is one for which no further action or high-tech is needed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In short, WP:Redirect#keep:
  • K4 – "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect..."
  • K5 – "Someone finds them useful...." — The reason I find it useful is that it is more precise. WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE can be a trade-off, as it is in this case. I'm OK with the shorter-and-less-precise name for the actual article, which can create the wrong impression this is about church cantatas by (J. S.) Bach; There is however no impediment to keep the more precise name for a redirect. J. S. Bach's second cantata cycle ended on Trinity Sunday 27 May 1725 and the first published libretto for his fourth cantata cycle was for St. John's Day 24 June 1728. What happened in between of those two dates with the church music (and in particular the cantatas) in the main churches of Leipzig is the exact and precise topic of the article.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken, at the time this was nominated, I saw no page links to the redirect. But since you're planning to use it for links, I've changed my opinion above to "keep". — Gorthian (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on strange specificity and unlikelihood of ever being used as a search term. KDS4444 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2016 (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/2016_August_10&oldid=1166566751"