Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 29

March 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2008

Delete all cabals → Words of wisdom
The result of the debate was keep. Sincerely, The Cabal (surrender) 00:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this serves a purpose. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Redirection target is not a page but a specific (and appropriate) section of Words of wisdom ("On Wikipedia and the Cabal"). It is a useful search term and is not a cross-namespace redirect. B.Wind (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * (I made this redir the other day.) It was mainly meant to be a joke. Of course most of the stuff mentioning cabals is at least partly humorous.  I don't get why we'd bother dragging it through an official deletion discussion- it's really quite trivial.  As I said on my talk page if anyone deletes this I will not argue.  However I didn't bother deleting it myself either as I see no reason to do so.  So my main opinion is "why would you bother?" rather than having a strong opinion either way on keep/delete.  Friday (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Friday, also not a cross-namespace redirect. Orderinchaos 09:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, no big deal. Let it be unless it is causing a problem. undefinedUntil  16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Users may use it to push a POV the cabals should be deleted, and use the shortcut, when other users may think it is a policy.  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope those users would be reminded that their argument (a redirect = policy) is a foolish an incorrect one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a harmless (but quite funny) joke. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; read this above. I don't understand the rationale for deletion. Having a personal desire to get rid of cabals can hardly be described as "POV pushing" unless the editor is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. EJF (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Table of Nations redirect to Sons of Noah article and request to create new scholarly article for Table of Nations "wikispace"
The result of the debate was Kept. If an article is desired, the redirect can be changed to an article. We don't delete redirects in these cases as the history is still valid. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Currently, Table of Nations redirects to Sons of Noah article.

I'd like to start a new article for the Table of Nations redirect that focuses on the actual biblical text of Genesis 10 and discusses the scholarly literature from all angles, all viewpoints major and minor WP:RS. The current article Sons of Noah, while refering to the biblical text in Genesis 10 (Hebrew Bible), seems to be written and edited with a bias (Turkish?), and non-conforming edits deleted that don't seem to fit the Turkish(?) context and bias of its original author in which he seems to have cast it (see Talk:Sons of Noah). I would like to include all scholarly opinion, including Turkish and Islamic, along with Christian and Jewish sources.

I'm new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure if I can just "take" this redirect and start a new article? I will use the basic outline of Sons of Noah but will make major editorial changes to layout and content. Third-party opinion needed...and if redirect delete is supported will need supporting opinions. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No deletiion is necessary if you're writing a new article at the redirect page (WP:BOLD), but keep in mind that if you write a POV fork, it will most likely to be either reverted back to a redirect or deleted altogether. The target article was once a featured article - why not try to help get it back to that status instead? B.Wind (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, I want to avoid a POV fork and instead make Table of Nations focus only on the Table of Nations in Genesis 10...where it is currently listed under Sons of Noah it also features discussions of other texts dealing with the Sons of Noah. The fact that it was a featured article is surprising, as there are barely any sources listed. I will likely have to add a source request to the existing article. Table of Nations would become a more in-depth focus of the text of Genesis 10, indlucing all points of view (about Asshur or whatever), which then could be summarized in the main article Sons of Noah. I don't see any POV|fork here. Do you? Hkp-avniel (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI: the current article Sons of Noah isn't even close to the original "featured article": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sons_of_Noah&oldid=2277492 that was a featured article that also discussed the racist misuses of the categories of Ham, Shem, and Japheth; the original section dealing with racism is not even included in the current version of Sons of Noah as per this post. A current editor has cast it in a "Turkish" context on the discussion page, of which, I don't see any particular relevance to a text authored by the ancient Israelites...? Hkp-avniel (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Leave it and just create the new article in its place- just make sure the two articles aren't overlapping in what they cover. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)