Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 1

December 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2010

Suspect guest house, Jalalabad



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Al-Qaeda safe house (links to redirect • [ history] • )

A particularly contentious AfD on this page, over a year ago, was closed as a Delete. The very same day, it was preserved as a redirect by User:Geo Swan, who as it happens was the creator of the original article and by far the most prolifically vocal Keep advocate. The same thing happened to Suspect guest house, Konduz, which was likewise closed as a Delete, by the same Mr. Swan, likewise the creator and likewise the most prolific opponent of deletion. I need not lean too heavily on the extreme unlikelihood of these coming up as search terms, or on the impropriety of immediately recreating the articles after deletion as redirects.  Ravenswing  21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, don't see any strong relationship between the titles.  Reh  man 14:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification please -- what would you require in order for you to recognize the close relationship between the terms? These terms are closely related.  At the time I created the redirects they had multiple incoming wikilinks.  All anyone who wanted to see how Suspect guest house, Jalalabad was related to the topic of Al-Qaeda safe houses would have needed to do was click on the "what links here" button for Suspect guest house, Jalalabad.  That won't work at this time, as another contributor, not the nominator here, delinked all the incoming wikilinks.  If those links hadn't been delinked they would contain the context that demonstrated the close relationship. American intelligence analysts conflated two terms that have separate meanings for civilians, guest house (lodging) and safe house.  Over one hundred Guantanamo captives had their continued detention justified, in part, because they had stayed in a guest house or safe house that had triggered American intelligence analysts suspicions.  Third party scholars who have written about this phenomenon have noted that DoD analysts always conflated the two terms.  For this reason I suggest that redirecting an wikilink on a suspect guest house to Al-Qaeda safe house is completely reasonable. You may feel the redirect only makes sense, if there are incoming wikilinks. I think those incoming wikilinks should be restored, after a re-write of the passages where they occur. I have tried to get the contributor who delinked these wikilinks to discuss their concerns with me, and to discuss alternatives that address their concerns.  I am very sorry to report that I have, so far, been met with a complete lack of cooperation.  Rather, all I get are accusations that I am violating WP:Ownership.  I see these accusations as illustrative of a lack of understanding of WP:Ownership. The way I see it good faith contributors are encouraged to voice good faith questions and concerns over any edit they see a problem with, without regard to who made the original edits to that passage in question, and, so long as the questions and concerns are policy-based and made in good faith, they should not be characterized as a lapse from WP:Ownership when the edit is to material the questioner originally contributed.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point its not ownership that I am concerned about but WP:POINT. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The proper way to have dealt with redlinks created through a Delete result at AfD would be - as it always is - to delink. With "what links here" and any cleanup bot, this is a matter of minutes, since I can't imagine there are dozens - never mind more - of Suspect guest house, Somewhereorother redlinks scattered about.  As far as the allegedly "close relationship" between articles goes, consensus went against that premise at AfD, and this is not the proper forum to reargue that.  As far as your belief that the links should be restored, that's a content dispute for which the other parties are not required to see things your way, and this is likewise not the proper forum to debate that.   Ravenswing  17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I went and looked at the afd, to see if I could see anyone dispute that there was a close relationship between the specific Jalalabad safe houses and guest houses and the more general article on Al-Qaeda safe houses. I didn't find anyone disputing that, let alone the consensus you claim.  I did find this comments, which I think implies the writer was acknowledging a close relationship, and implies that redirection to Al-Qaeda safe house is a logical consequence of deleting Suspect guest house, Jalalabad:  Mm, I'm with Quantpole. Subjects aren't notable because we want them to be. They qualify for articles on Wikipedia if they pass the consensus criteria for inclusion, which includes WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Is the subject of safe houses generally important? Yes, indeed, and there's an article already on them: Al-Qaeda safe house.  Can you guess who wrote this comment?  User:Ravenswing wrote this comment.  I request you reconcile your acknowledgement of the relationship on 2009-08-25 with your disputing that relationship today.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no strong relationship between Suspect guest house, Jalalabad and Al-Qaeda safe house and that has been stated multiple times. There are no independent reliable sources that directly verify a strong relationship between theses terms. IQinn (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Let me see if I can break this down very simply with an analogy.  The GURPS roleplaying game is, indisputably, notable.  I have written multiple GURPS products.  I was one of GURPS' original playtesters, and a noted contributor to the game's rules.  That does not mean that I pass WP:BIO, and it does not mean that my name would make a meaningful redirect to the GURPS article.  My "relationship," such as it is, with the game system is thin.  That being said, you are really fishing hard here if you're distorting several month old comments ... and to what end, exactly?  What's your point?   Ravenswing  05:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT "impropriety" -- This nomination characterizes my creation of these redirections as an "impropriety". Since other articles included wikilinks to these terms, and the deletions turned those wikilinks to redlinks, I am frankly puzzled to see my redirection of the redlink to a related article described as an impropriety.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked the admin who closed the afd for their opinion as to whether I committed an "impropriety". Here is their reply.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not that you redirected a redlink. It's that you recreated articles that community consensus saw as unnecessary mere hours after deletion.  If a redirect was appropriate, the community would have advocated that at AfD.  They didn't.   Ravenswing  17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not "...recreate[d] articles that community consensus saw as unnecessary mere hours after deletion." A redirect is not an article.  I see you are a regular patroller, so I am very surprised to see you make this mistake. It really surprises  because, as a regular patroller, surely you know a recreation of a deleted article would be eligible for speedy deletion as a WP:CSD? While this particular afd did not say, one way or another, whether the redlinks should be dealt with through the creation of a redirect, or through setting a bot to work to delink the redlinks, other similar afd have recommended the creation of redirects to related, but more thoroughly referenced articles.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rehman. No strong connection. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Rehman. IQinn (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WRT the relationship between the redirect and target article -- 122 of the 2004 memos that laid out the justification for the Guantanamo captives continued detention justified that detention due to an allegation they stayed in a guest house or safe house suspected of ties to terrorism. Joseph Felter and his colleagues comment on these allegations in detail, throughout "An Assessment of 516 Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) Unclassified Summaries".  The last half of page 26, all of page 27, and the first paragraph of page 28 focus in detail on guest house stay.  The article makes crystal clear, that Felter and his colleagues recognized that US intelligence analysts treated a stay in a suspicious guest house in Jalalabad as just as much of a threat as a stay in safe house known to be run by al Qaeda or the Taliban.  The idea that they the two terms are closely related is not my invention.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, no one is proposing deleting redirects for Taliban safe house or Al Qaida guest house; could we confine rebuttals to the arguments, please? I admit I hadn't looked at the "what links here" link for Al-Qaeda safe house, which turns up a blizzard of baroque redirect pages such as Taliban guest house, Baghlan, Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2001, Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2000, Suspect safe house, Bosnia, Layover al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, Al Qaida guest house, Peshawar, Taliban guest house, Spin Boldak, Arab guest house, Islamabad, Al Qaida safe house, raided, Jihadist guest house, Afghanistan, Taliban Howza guest house, Mazari Sharif, Suspect guest house, Peshawar, Al Qaida safe house, recruit hostel, Taliban-run Madafa guest house and dozens more.  Like the two I cited from AfD, the odds that any human being would possibly type in "Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2000" expecting to see an article are remote.   Ravenswing  18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens, no one is proposing deleting redirects for Taliban safe house or Al Qaida guest house; could we confine rebuttals to the arguments, please? I admit I hadn't looked at the "what links here" link for Al-Qaeda safe house, which turns up a blizzard of baroque redirect pages such as Taliban guest house, Baghlan, Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2001, Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2000, Suspect safe house, Bosnia, Layover al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, Al Qaida guest house, Peshawar, Taliban guest house, Spin Boldak, Arab guest house, Islamabad, Al Qaida safe house, raided, Jihadist guest house, Afghanistan, Taliban Howza guest house, Mazari Sharif, Suspect guest house, Peshawar, Al Qaida safe house, recruit hostel, Taliban-run Madafa guest house and dozens more.  Like the two I cited from AfD, the odds that any human being would possibly type in "Al Qaida safe house, Kandahar, 2000" expecting to see an article are remote.   Ravenswing  18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett/Great Atuin



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Discworld (world) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I don't see any reason for this redirect. It has no incoming links, it's not useful for searching and it has no significant history. Svick (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, per nom.  Reh  man 14:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Marquise de Boufflers



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Marie Françoise Catherine de Beauvau. That was the only article I found on a "marquise de Boufflers". If there are others, this can be expanded to a disambiguation page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Louis François, duc de Boufflers (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete this redirect. "Marquise" is a woman's title, Louis is a man - and a duke not a marquis. There were also apparently several "marquises de Boufflers".--Folantin (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, if it could be proven that these two are not the same person. Or disambiguate if necessary.  Reh  man 14:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Is...



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Already deleted by User:Courcelles. --Taelus (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete all - I see no reason for these redirects to exist. I doubt anyne would go looking for these (Iit would make sense to look for "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is ...", not "Wikipedia:Is...", except where the "Is" is part of a question.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links to redirect • [ history] • )


 * Keep all people use these all the time in discussions to link to the page. 65.93.13.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak delete. My first impresstion was to vote "keep". But looking at the number of links to it, and the nominators reason, IMO it's good to go.  Reh  man 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Facebook.com/djquikvic



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Both source and target deleted - target as self redirect, source as a redirect to a deleted page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Facebook.com/djquikvic (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Not needed Confession0791 talk 09:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy close. This was an implausible redirect to a facebook page after the editor's article was deleted. Nothing to discuss. Cindamuse (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPSD/Sandbox



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:WikiProject Food and drink (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Housekeeping. The original template for this redirect was deleted long ago, there are no articles linking to it and there is not need for it. Kumioko (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy close, as G6.  Reh  man 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WPMIX/Sandbox



 * 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:WikiProject Food and drink (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Housekeeping. The original template for this redirect was deleted long ago, there are no articles linking to it and there is not need for it. Kumioko (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy close, as G6.  Reh  man 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)