Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 16: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:23, 17 February 2008

< February 15

February 17 >

February 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 16, 2008

User:Grounded into a double play → Double play

Cross-namespace redirect. User had previously copy-pasted all of Double play into user page, and has since gone with a redirect instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the copy of the page might was too long, redirects are one liners. So what gives? Grounded into a double play (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cross space redirect. Also, currently at Wikipedia:MfD#User:Grounded into a double play.--Addhoc (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc and per its sheer uselessness. JuJube (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addhoc, WP:R#DELETE only refers to cross-namespace redirect out of the mainspace, not into it, so I don't think I can agree. This user may be trying to reform after having had a copy of the article speedied under G-12 and then MFDd (when it could've just been speedied as G-12/G-4). Based on the user's talk page I'm not at all confident that is the case - he or she is cruising for a block - but on the assumption that this is good faith change I think we should let it stand unless we have a good reason not to allow cross-namespace redirects into the mainspace.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Designer Headbands → Headband

The result of the debate was Speedy delete G3 by User:Pegasus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a product of the deletion of an article created by spammer Ringlitz9825 (talk · contribs). Speedy was denied by DGG (talk · contribs) which does make some sense. Still, this is an extremely unlikely search term. Even the use of "designer headband" is at best marginal (about 600 Ghits). Pichpich (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Government Art Schools → Royal College of Art

Unlikely search term and may cause confusion--there are plenty of other government art schools; see page 72 of Art and Nationalism in Colonial India, 1850-1922: Occidental Orientations, for example (found via Google). Besides, the capITalization is wrong. Matchups (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Occupation Forces → Israel Defense Forces

Point of view based redirection. The author is a Palestinian who inserts his own P.O.V. into articles and creates these kind of redirections. He was recently blocked for 48 hours for his actions (see user's discussion page), but sadly, this redirection was never deleted. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Radical-Dreamer (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, non-neutral term. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how the term "occupation forces" is any more POV than "defense forces." One side sees them as defending Israel, the other side sees them as occupying Palestinian/Arab territory. There is no absolute truth. Matchups (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IDF stands for 'Israel Defence Forces'. That is the official name for the Israeli army. We are not debating here whether you're pro-Arab or pro-Israel (although, IMO, it is quite obvious that you're pro-Arab). According to you, it's ok if I'll create a redirection called "Terrorists" and redirect it to "Palestinians" or create a redirection called "Egypt/Syria/Lebannon/Jorden Occupation Forces". This redirection should be deleted. Period. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces. There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces. If the admin closes this as a keep, I will be tempted to create redirects for Syrian Occupation Forces to Syrian army and so forth. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 *'''Delete''' POV, non-neutral term. [[User:Andranikpasha|Andranikpasha]] ([[User talk:Andranikpasha|talk]]) 17:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' I don't see how the term "occupation forces" is any ''more'' POV than "defense forces."  One side sees them as defending Israel, the other side sees them as occupying Palestinian/Arab territory.  There is no absolute truth. [[User:Matchups|Matchups]] ([[User talk:Matchups|talk]]) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
+** IDF stands for 'Israel Defence Forces'. That is the official name for the Israeli army. We are not debating here whether you're pro-Arab or pro-Israel (although, IMO, it is quite obvious that you're pro-Arab). According to you, it's ok if I'll create a redirection called "Terrorists" and redirect it to "Palestinians" or create a redirection called "Egypt/Syria/Lebannon/Jorden Occupation Forces". This redirection should be deleted. Period. [[User:Radical-Dreamer|Radical-Dreamer]] ([[User talk:Radical-Dreamer|talk]]) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Strong delete''' It's not about whether you think the IDF "occupies" the Palestinian territories. It's about the actual name of the IDF. The official English name is the Israel Defense Forces.  There is no such thing as the "Israel Occupation Forces.  If the admin closes this as a keep, I will be tempted to create redirects for [[Syrian Occupation Forces]] to [[Syrian army]] and so forth. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ([[User talk:Shalom|Hello]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shalom|Peace]]) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)