This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2010
Gaza flotilla massacre
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus, default to keep.WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV titled redirects. Close to G10, IMHO, but not quite there. But still... All three were blanked by an IP and I reverted the blanking, but I agree that the redirects are POV and inappropriate as they are.TexasAndroid (talk)20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You say this is a "plausible" search term without giving proof for their plausibleness. Your argument falls intoWP:GHITS, which is an invalid reason, as google hits should be backed up by reliable sources. Also seewp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined byWikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases.Maashatra11 (talk)22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment given I made two out of three of these you should have mentioned this deletion request on my talk page.
- On the redirects themselveskeep at leastGaza flotilla massacre as it seems to be inreasonable use - and just because the redirect title isn't NPOV doesn't mean it isn't useful. With regards to the latest additionkeepMavi Marmara Massacre as well as it seems to be getting a reasonable amount of traffic. And perWP:RNEUTRAL its in use by Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror which seems to be fairly reliable (source) - they are mentioned in theBBC's Sri Lanka country profile prominently. --Eraserhead1 <talk>16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sorry. My first RFD in a long, long time, and I did it manually because of the multiple-redirect nature. I'm used to doing deletions via scripts, which also handle the notifications automagically. While doing this one manually, such totally slipped my mind. Again, I'm sorry. -TexasAndroid (talk)14:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Gaza flotilla massacre" is a redundant redirect (see my comment below) and all the redirects are non-neutral. They imply that the 9 deaths on The Gaza flotilla resulted from amassacre by the IDF, when the truth is quite the contrary in that that it was reportedly an act of self defense against the intentions of the activists to massacre the IDF soldiers.Maashatra11 (talk)16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, we also use the redirect "Gaza massacre" to the "Gaza War" article, which could also be called POV. Doing as Maashatra11 suggests and only go by the IDF claims, would in reality be POV.Kermanshahi (talk)16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaza massacre is seemingly kept because it is an allegedly common name in theArab world for the Gaza war. It doesn't mean that "Gaza flotilla massacre" is also a common name in the Arab world for the flotilla raid.
If I'm wrong in my preposition that it isn't common/popular wording, please include the phrase "Gaza flotilla massacre" in theGaza flotilla raid article, just like "Gaza massacre" is incorporated in the lead of theGaza war article.Maashatra11 (talk)16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment alsoKeepMavi Marmara Massacre - valid search term; no basis in policy for deletionBridgeplayer (talk)19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - POV, but in use. These are phrases that have been used to refer to this event, and as such are plausible search terms; POV isn't usually a good enough reason to delete a redirect that might be useful.Robofish (talk)00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You say these are "plausible" search terms "that have been used to refer to this event" without giving proof for their plausibleness. Seewp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined byWikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases.Maashatra11 (talk)22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/12233.html --Eraserhead1 <talk>22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepGaza flotilla massacre at least, the others I am not so sure about. Seems a likely search term. Lots of things are named "massacres". The St. Valentines's Day Massacre for instance. Calling it that doesn't really imply a judgement, that's just its name. Boston Massacre. Etc.Herostratus (talk)05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep except for the 2010 redirects. "Raid" will be more enduring name in English-speaking world but purpose of redirect is to enable finding an article. Deletion because of "non-neutrality" of search term is a POV edit that itself violates Wikipediapolicy on re-directs which says that non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion. Word "massacre" has been used in MSM incl. by heads of state, see, e.g.,http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0601/Turkish-PM-calls-Israeli-raid-on-Gaza-flotilla-ship-a-massacre andhttp://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/jerusalem-post/mi_8048/is_20100601/protesters-decry-gaza-flotilla-massacre/ai_n53871014/ But the "2010" entries are clutter.LakeAtNight (talk)08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I think that "Gaza flotilla massacre" is redundant, because in order to reach this redirect, you have to type "Gaza flotilla" in the search box, and what you get is only "Gaza flotilla raid" (the destination article) and "Gaza flotilla massacre" - the controversial redirect. You can try it by yourselves. I really cannot understand why such a redirect is necessary at all? seeThe Wikipedia page of Reasons for not deleting - How is it exactly useful? On which terms does it aid searches?Maashatra11 (talk)18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Wikipedia:CANADIAN COMMUNITES
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Misspelled, unused (no incoming links and 0 pageviews in most months), and unlikely to be used. Also, it is quite long for a shortcut and could be replaced by alternatives, such asWP:CANCOM (WP:WCC andWP:WPCC are already taken).(Redirect creator notified usingTemplate:RFDNote) --Black Falcon(talk)18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.Lsit of evangelion albums
[edit]List of resignations
[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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedilyconverted to a disambiguation page.Arbitrarily0 (talk)19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect created by recent page move. This title is extremely vague and does not necessarily correlate to the redirect target. —KuyaBriBriTalk16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Convert to a disambiguation page - it seems like "list of resignations" would be a much more common search term than "list of resignations of notable government figures". It doesn't seem misleading to me, at least - this is the kind of page I'd expect a "list of resignations" search to lead me to. Cheers,Arbitrarily0 (talk)16:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-namespace redirect with little value, perWP:REDIR╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I almost feel likeignoring all rules on this one, just because it seems like it could aid Wikipedia readers (rather than just editors) find featured content. It can't hurt to make our featured content more accessible.Arbitrarily0 (talk)16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perWP:IAR this isn't just an "admin" Wiki page but one readers are expected to use. --Eraserhead1 <talk>08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noinexperienced reader would search for "featured topics" –╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, can we be sure of this? It seems like it only has potential to help readers, even if few users ever use it.Arbitrarily0 (talk)02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -Arbitrarily0 makes a fair point. The possible benefits outweigh any perceived harm.Bridgeplayer (talk)19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toFeature, a disambig. I added a hatnote tha points toWikipedia:Featured topics there to preserve the redirect's function.--Lenticel(talk)05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be deleted as it only redirects to a single role that this person has worked on. For example,Megumi Takamoto used to redirect to theWinry Rockbell article, but it was deleted.Geg (talk)01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't like targeting marginal people at individual roles. Firstly, when they have multiple roles, which one do you point to?; for example why not target this guy atGoGo Sentai Boukenger? Secondly, the redirect inhibits article creation. Better to have a red link that will encourage editors to assess notability.Bridgeplayer (talk)19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I think actors should not be redirected to their roles, full stop. Either an article on the person exists or it doesn't, but a redirect is not a helpful solution.Robofish (talk)00:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
