Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 28

April 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2008

aftercare → aftercare (BDSM)
The result of the debate was turn to disambiguation. (It is a somehow weird dab page, but makes sense so I have started it) - Nabla (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC) I think that somebody typing in "aftercare" is probably looking for information about the topic mentioned in the disambiguation sentence at the top of the article, rather than the information about the topic referenced in the body of the article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Dabify - too many other options for this term. The other alternative, moving aftercare (BDSM) to aftercare, makes less sense givent the top of that article. B.Wind (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Create disambiguation page per B.Wind. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Stab City → Limerick
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC) I am nominating this for two reasons. Firstly, Limerick is not the only city in the world to have been given this name. I am also nominating it as it's offensiveness to people from Limerick qualifies it as an inflammatory redirect under the Deletion Policy Squidlimerick (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)s for any place on earth

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Yes, and some typical examples, Newcastle in UK, Australia and Los Angelous in USA have these type of monikers from time to time too. They are meaningless - I don't think wikipedia as an internet tool is created to associate inflammatory redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Per nom and "inflamatory/inappropriate redirects". (Also RFD 3 (inflamatory/offensive), RFD 4 and RFD 7 (obscure/inappropriate), and per RFD Neutrality.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - blatant attack redirect and very general. A broad view of CSD G10 could get this speedied.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 16:21, April 28, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The monikor "Stab City" is referenced on the Limerick page. This term does not require it's own wikipedia entry. It should be sufficient that Any search of wikipedia will return a result for Limerick. A redirect page is not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.226.54 (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there going to be any movement on this?  Squidlimerick (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Beth ann mcbride → Beth Ann McBride
The result of the debate was Deleted per CSD R1, redirect to a non-existent page. Non-admin closure.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 16:20, April 28, 2008 (UTC) Redirect to a now-deleted article KleenupKrew (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as R1 (no target). I have tagged it as such. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Hermann to Robert Koch
The result of the debate was Deleted. In addition to Koch, both Max Nettlau & Ferdinand Heinrich Hermann Strecker have this as part of their names. As such, a redirect to a single person isn't appropriate and a disambig is overkill. The search box is better suited for this. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I can find no-one called Herm... or Heinr... mentioned on the target page. Only incoming link to redirect is from WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Repeated letters/6, which is how I found it. Created in 2005, no edit history since then. PamD (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - no apparent connection to target; not a likely search topic at all. B.Wind (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Keep as plausible search term in light of additional sourced information placed in target article. B.Wind (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to this, this and this, it's part of his full name.  (I'm not yet sure why our own Robert Koch page does not address the full name.)  Interestingly, Britannica lists them as his middle names while the other sources list them before Robert.  Rossami (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After a little more digging into the history of Robert Koch, it appears that then other parts of his name got stripped out of the article during a cleanup of some vandalism on the page. Prior to Oct 2006, the article clearly used all four parts of his name.  Rossami (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral as redirects are cheap. But do we need those? Say, do we need Charles Lynton redirecting to Tony Blair; or Diane Rodham to Hillary Clinton; etc.? - Nabla (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism in Iceland → 1986_Hvalur_sinkings
The result of the debate was Deleted. Redirect is broader in scope than target. Even if this is the only action in Iceland that could be labeled as terrorism, that's not addressed at the target and a person searching for this phrase is probably looking for broader information. As such, deletion is better. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) This redirect is libellous. The Hvalur sinkings were calculated not to harm anybody (that's why only two of the three ships were sunk). There was no chance, and presumably no intention, of causing terror in the population. Under most definitions of terrorism these are two necessary elements, and so this was no terrorism. The sources for the article give no indication that the sinkings were generally seen as terrorism. One of the sources says that even in Iceland only some newspapers called it terrorism. (The others called it vandalism or the act of madmen.) Another source speaks of an "unprecedented terrorism attack", but only in the title and the lede. It undermines this by explaining how the Icelandic authorities declined the offer of the "terrorists" (these are irony quotes, the article is careful not to call them terrorists) to render themselves to be prosecuted. Hans Adler (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Libel is a legal term best left to the Wikipedia legal staff. On the other hand, the text of the target article does mention "terrorism" and "Iceland" in close proximity, thus making "terrorism in Iceland" a likely (and therefore useful) search item for the article. Keep. B.Wind (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be some reverting and citation work going on at the article in question; the word "terrorism" is no longer included in the article, and at least one editor is making the argument that it doesn't apply to the event, and adding citations for that position. The redirect seems like a way to pursue a non-neutral POV outside the normal process for resolving content disputes. I think in this case, delete is the best way to go. -Pete (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. WP:NPOV does not apply to redirect pages. The question is whether or not it is a likely or useful search item. Humor (or lack thereof) is also irrelevant to whether the redirect should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that NPOV does not apply to redirects. Please read my reasoning more closely. In your reasoning for "keep," you used the fact that "terrorism" was in the article text as part of your justification. It was subsequently removed, with a reason in the edit summary. If the word is not consistently part of the article due to a content dispute, I believe it's an inappropriate redirect. If it's not terrorism, the redirect would be offensive, and this rule would apply: "The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." Since we're not really in a position to evaluate the outcome of the content dispute, I think deletion is the safer and more appropriate course. -Pete (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unfunny redirect Towel401 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article seems stable now and it does reference, and source, the expression terrorism. - Nabla (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)