This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2008
The result of the debate was
deleted. There is no established proper noun in scholarly or mainstream usage called
Soviet Holocaust. The redirect seems to attempt to apply the ideological baggage of connotation from one set of historical events to another in a manner in gross violation of
WP:NPOV and
WP:NOR, which will be offensive to many users. Besides the latter, I fail to see the redirect's purpose in any case. -
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk)
05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Offensive misleading name, the word holocaust is even not mentioned in the main articleAlex Bakharev (talk)07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually this redirect has possibilities for an article, these books call the Stalinist crimes of the 1930's a"Soviet holocaust" on the Russian people:[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8].Martintg (talk)09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The wholeCommunist terrorism has always been a portmanteau article, and in order to keep it, even Stalin's crimes and the gulag were included along with communist support for real terrorists. I am afraid an article on its own would also suffer from ambiguity in the title, as some people may think it primarily refers to the Soviet Union's treatment of Jews. If it cannot be its own article, the info above may be included in the Holocaust page.--Paul Pieniezny (talk)14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect now points toGreat Purge. I've added some references in that article that shows that mainstream authors like Ian Kershaw describes that period as a "Soviet holocaust". So while it may not warrant development into an article of its own, it certainly is a valid search term.Martintg (talk)19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was
Kept (nomination withdrawn). --
JLaTondre (
talk)
23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Not sure why this is even created because it makes no sense. Todos Santos is not even an alternative name for Concord.Chris!ct06:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to the 2nd sentence of the articleConcord, California, "Originally founded in 1869 as the community of Todos Santos..." This redirect should remain per Lists of Places which have links to all named locations some of which exist with new names after a name change or have been absorbed into another community. Todos Santos appears atList of places in California (T) and all the items on the list should eventually be created or linked to an appropriate article. Todos Santos was the name of Concord briefly and should therefore not be a redlink to a non-notable article regarding the Todos Santos period of Concord it should simply redirect to Concord, California.W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk)06:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is in the article, but the article claims it was almost instantly renamed. So, do we really need a redirect in case someone writes something about that short period there? Wikipedia does not have anything on it except for the list quoted (all the other links refer to the deletion debate), which however expressly states that it is a list of "current" localities only, which means Todos Santos should not actually be there. So we have to google for use and notoriety, which in this case is of course very difficult, because there are literally hundreds of places called "Todos Santos" all over the world. Most false positives seem to come fromTodos Santos, Baja California Sur, and from Todos Santos inBolivia, but there ia also a Todos Santos Plaza (in Concord), a Todos Santos bay, a Todos Santos island, a battle of Dos Santos (probably the Baja California one) in the Mexican war. However, one important google is the Britannica:[9], which also asserts that it was named Todos Santos a bit earlier, so I suppose held the name a bit longer too. As fara as I see, it may actually be the only good googel there. Note that Todos Santos-Concord is mentioned at the disambiguation pageTodos Santos. So, is Britannica sufficient to establish enough use to retain the redirect or is it enough that it is mentioned at a dab page? I would tend to go for retention. --Paul Pieniezny (talk)13:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This really was the name of the city for a short period; that's enough to make it a good redirect. Moreover,Todos Santos is, in fact, a disambiguation page, so this more specific redirect shouldn't cause any problems that wouldn't arise otherwise.—Gavia immer (talk)14:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlist Based on the evidence given above, I think it is appropriate to unlist.Chris!ct17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
