Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 3

May 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2010

User:Shaakunthala/Asia-Pacific Telecentre Network



 * 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD at user's request JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Asia-Pacific Telecentre Network (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is redirect caused by moving a completed userspace draft to a public article space. This redirect is no longer necessary. It should be deleted. සමීර ශාකුන්තල | Sameera Shaakunthala 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to come here to request deletion of a document in your userspace. Simply tag the page with WP:CSD and it will be deleted. –Grondemar 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tagged the article on your behalf. –Grondemar 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Guest house, Afghanistan



 * 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 Speedy deleted as blatantly absurd ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


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

All Guest houses in Afghanistan are Al-Qaeda safe houses? IQinn (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, blatantly erroneous and not at all plausible. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arab guesthouse (Pakistan)



 * 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 Speedy deleted as blatantly absurd ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


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

All Arab guest-houses in Pakistan are Al-Qaeda safe houses? IQinn (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, blatantly erroneous and not at all plausible. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arab guest house, Afghanistan



 * 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 Speedy deleted as blatantly absurd ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


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

All Arab guest-houses in Afghanistan are Al-Qaeda safe houses? IQinn (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, blatantly erroneous and not at all plausible. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

East Turkistan Organization safe 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 Pretty much per Tikiwont. Not a huge amount of contributors here, but consensus does seem to indicate that this is as stretch, at best.  Discussions on renaming the target are indeed usually out of scope of a given discussion on redirects, and that's true here.  As noted below, this does not seem to accurate or appropriate enough to be worthwhile or helpful to a searching editor. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


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

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that would justify to redirect East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- As I wrote in response to a previous similar request for discussion, I believe User:Iqinn's concern here can be completely addressed by renaming al-Qaeda safe house to more closely reflect what the articles is currently about, and what its references assert. Scholars who have analyzed the Guantanamo documents don't distinguish between the allegations that captives continued detention was justified based on an allegation that they stayed in a Taliban or al Qaeda guest house or safe house, or whether they stayed in a guest house that had triggered suspicion for reasons that weren't published in the unclassified documents on the public record.  All the teams of scholars decided to follow the analysts lead and treat all those allegations as equivalent.  So, I suggested on Talk:Al-Qaeda safe house that it be renamed.  I think the new name should reflect scholars decision to treat all these allegations as equivalent.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal of renaming Al-Qaeda safe house is independent from this discussion here as the topic here is the redirection East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) to Al-Qaeda safe house.


 * Do you have any source that links East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) to Al-Qaeda. Could you please provide us the sources for that? Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. You have any quote from any source that you could post here? We had just some other similar redirects where you failed to provide detailed relevant references for your claims. IQinn (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reply here is identical to the response below. I believe my response below is equally applicable here.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And my request for detailed relevant sources is equally applicable here. Your continuous failure to deliver sources for the link of East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) and Al Qaeda that would justify this redirect is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record I dispute that I have failed to provide relevant sources. Geo Swan (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? So where are the relevant sources? IQinn (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per my justification below. This actually borders on speedy delete territory as this is a most highly improbable search term (as indicated by the lack of an East Turkistan Organization safe house article or redirect - or even one for East Turkistan Organization, for that matter). B.Wind (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Transliteration is the problem here. There are multiple Uyghur separatist groups.  They range in their level of militancy.  Possibly the most well-known group now is one usually transliterated in English as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, the East Turkestan Independence Party, and about half a dozen minor variations.  American scholars who study the Uyghur people have testified before the US Congress that they had never heard of the ETIM or ETIP prior to the Chinese government claiming it was the dangerous Uyghur terrorist group.  Some commentators speculate that the group is not a real group, but one secretly run by agent provocateurs in the pay of Chinese security to justify repressing the entire Uyghur community.
 * In the first few months of reading and using the document the DoD was forced to make public due to FOIA requests I ignored and corrected what at first seemed like the occasional obvious, trivial typographical errors. But, as I used those documents, I decided that these apparent typographical errors weren't actually obvious, or occasional.  I decided then to use the original wording, the original spelling, even if I was personally sure what the original authors should have written.  Personally, I am sure that the East Turkistan Organization referred to in the documents that prompted me to create this redirect should have used the transliteration East Turkistan Islamic Movement.
 * The process of checking the context in which this redirect was used should have been trivial -- just click on the "what links here" button. But it is not possible for you or any other reader here to check the context.  In a series of edits explained only with inadequate edit summaries that they were "removing the interpretation of a questionable source" User:Iqinn removed several thousand valid and useful wikilinks.
 * Finally, you write as if dealing with readers search requests were the sole reason to use redirections. Surely dealing with alternate names found in WP:RS is just as valid a reason for redirections.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Last night I used google book search, and found several books that use the term East Turkistan Organization or East Turkestan Organization. Some of these references treat it as a synonym for East Turkestan Islamic Movement.  Others treat it as a separate organization.  I got half way in preparing a draft, when I realized there might be sufficient references to redirect it to East Turkestan Islamic Movement.  So, for the record WP:RS do use the term User:Geo Swan/East Turkistan Organization.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I redirected Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad and East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) to point to Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I redirected Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad and East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) to point to Uyghur people until things have been discussed. The from User Geo Swan suggested target article is controversial and does not mention Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad. IQinn (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute the assertion that the article "does not mention Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad". These three references from the article specifically quote passages from WP:RS that assert the captives stayed in Uyghur guest house(s) in Jalalabad.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * fast mirror
 * fast mirror
 * fast mirror


 * These three out of context quotes that are not part of the article text and have just been added by User Geo Swan himself as references to a statement of another source in classic violation of WP:SYN. And i recommend this user should have a look at WP:Point because i think his actions become disruptive to the work here at Wikipedia. IQinn (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did add those references, and their associated quote fields. I don't think I need apologize for doing so, as I consider the references, and their associated quote fields pertinent.  If the rest of the document said something that contradicted the quotes I would agree they were out of context.  But nothing in the rest of those documents contradicts those quotes either explicitly or implicitly.


 * For the record I had not "just added" these references. I added the Bahtiyar Mahnut reference on April 29th. I added the Emam Abdulahat and Ahmad Muhamman Yaqub references on May 10, about four hours prior to User:Iqinn's redirection.


 * Making efforts to address concerns raised at afd is what we are supposed to do. Geo Swan (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome to address concerns raised at afd. Nobody ever disputed that.
 * "just added" i think their was absolutely nothing wrong to describe it as "just added" and i do not think that is a valid topic to discuss here.
 * The fact is that these out of context references and quotes have been added to a part of the article in violation of WP:SYN what is misleading and these quotes and the term Uighur guesthouse in Jalalabad are not part of the article text and this by no means verifies or justify these redirections nor does anything else in the article would justify to redirect these two terms to the from you newly created article. IQinn (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Target article is about a general phenomenon and some other general terms may be appropriate redirects, but single guest hosues would not. That is a general objection independent of references on the claim / suspicion. We just should not have in such a case form the single item to a a general topic where it isn't even mentioned. The redirect should not serve as shortcut to the valid editorial solution namely stating and sourcing at the article about the detainee where he stayed and what that may have to do with his detainment and where necessary link directly to the article on the general topic. Looking at Abdul Razakah at the time of this post East Turkistan Organization camp seems to be a valid redirect, but East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) is not.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Uyghur guest house in 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 Pretty much per Tikiwont. Not a huge amount of contributors here, but consensus does seem to indicate that this is as stretch, at best.  Discussions on renaming the target are indeed usually out of scope of a given discussion on redirects, and that's true here.  As noted below, this does not seem to accurate or appropriate enough to be worthwhile or helpful to a searching editor. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


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

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that would justify to redirect Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I responded to this and several other recent requests for discussion from User:Iqinn with the suggest that simplest way to address User:Iqinn's concerns are to rename the article al-Qaeda safe house to more closely reflect what the scholarly sources it references say. Several teams of scholars have published articles analyzing the meaning of terms used by the intelligence analysts in their justifications for the captives' continued detention.  Those scholars (note) that the intelligence analysts documents don't explicitly define the difference between a suspicious guest house and a suspicious safe house.  They note that the analysts make allegations that captives stayed in suspicious guesthouses where they didn't explicitly state why the guest house was suspicious, but that they treated those allegations as if they were just as serious as those that captives stayed in al Qaeda or Taliban safehouses.  For instance Benjamin Wittes and his colleagues at the Brookings Institute wrote: "If the government’s allegations against detainees are uniformly credited, the following picture of the current population emerges ... 130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses."  For the record I believe I have already offered an abundance of references.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal of renaming Al-Qaeda safe house is independent from this discussion here as the topic here is the redirection Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda safe house.


 * Do you have any source that links Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda. Could you please provide us the sources for that? Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. You have any quote from any source that you could post here? We had just some other similar redirects where you failed to provide detailed relevant references for your claims. IQinn (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I disagree that my suggestion is unrelated to this request for discussion. On the contrary, since your justification for this request is that you are unsatisfied that the references I have offered sufficiently establish a connection to "al Qaeda safe house", I believe this suggestion fully and completely addresses your concern.  The article al-Qaeda safe house is really about all the guest houses and safe houses that intelligence analysts found suspicious enough that they suggested a stay there justified continued detention in Guantanamo -- not just those they publicly identified as Taliban or al Qaeda houses.  This is what the scholarly articles support.


 * Second, I believe I have already offered you lots of references, including the reference above -- a reference to which you haven't explained why it didn't find it satisfactory.


 * Third, I am going to repeat that I think it would be best if you didn't first remove all the wikilinks to redirects, prior to suggesting their deletion. By removing all the incoming wikilinks you make it practically impossible for uninvolved third parties to confirm that there was a reason for the redirect, and that the articles that used the redirect had references that backed it up.  Note, I am not suggesting bad faith on your part here -- just bad judgment.  Geo Swan (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not provided us with any relevant reference that link Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda. The sources above not even mention Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad. Please stop wasting out time and provide valid relevant references. Preferable quotes from secondary sources. It would be easy if you would have some.


 * I am going to repeat do not disrupt Wikipedia with filibustering time wasting empty words. There are no sources that link Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda. There have been now enough friendly request for sources. As you once again fail to deliver i can only assume that you do not have detailed relevant sources. So please stop disrupting Wikipedia by spreading propaganda and agree that this redirect should be deleted to avoid harming the quality of Wikipedia and to avoid the further waste the time of other editors. IQinn (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain why you do not recognize that the Benjamin Wittes article establishes that the Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad was one of the 130 guest houses that according to the analysis of Wittes et al was a justification for captives' continued detention? Geo Swan (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a direct quote from this long document that you think would verify this claim. Didn't you want to provide us with sources for the connection of Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad and Al-Qaeda? Do you have sources for that? I do not see that the from you provided sources would draw this connection. Could you please provide a direct Quote from this long source that would verify your claims. That would be very helpful. Thank you.


 * Delete - too many words have been wasted above on both sides. The simple facts are 1) the name of the redirect is nowhere to be found in the target; and 2) not a single reliable source has an article containing "Uyghur guest house", Jalalabad, and Al-Qaeda (in fact, only 13 independent listings appeared in a Google search involving the three terms). While some Uyghurs lived in safe houses, keeping the redirect would imply that some (or all) of them would have a connection with Al-Qaeda, which is not demonstrated in either the target article or reliable online sources. B.Wind (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, in a series of 250 very poorly explained excisions the nominator previously removed several thousand valid and useful wikilinks, including the wikilinks to Uyghur guest house. Then they requested deletion of these redirects.  Good faith third party contributor cannot, therefore, click on the what links here button.
 * The assertion that not a single, reliable source links the guest houses Uyghurs are alleged to have stayed in to Islamic militancy is wildly incorrect. I know our nominator did not bother to check the reference I already provided.  This is merely one of many civilian references that substantiate that link.
 * Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier. My apologies.  I have been working on a draft, in user space, Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy.  I know our nominator was aware of this draft, because they left the cryptic and unhelpful comment that they had WP:OR concerns about it.  Note: I am not accusing our nominator of a lapse from WP:POINT in nominating this redirect for deletion, when they knew I was close to providing a more focussed article for it to redirect to.
 * Third, the wikipedia's policy on verifiability says we should aim for verifiability, not truth. I do not believe there is any doubt that there are copious WP:RS that make the assertion, or discuss the assertion, that all the known Uyghur guest houses and safe houses in Afghanistan and Pakistan were linked to Islamic militancy, and that a stay in one of those houses was a valid justification for ongoing detention.  It seems to me that to suppress material that neutrally reflects what WP:RS say due to our personal doubts over the credibility of the WP:RS assertions is a serious lapse from WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per B.Wind and i am not going into correction of all the uncivil and mostly false ad hominum arguments against me and the WP:Wikilawyering in the last comment of User Geo Swan that border WP:GAME. Fact is once again he fails to show specific relevant references or quotes from these references that would justify a redirection of Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note -- By nominating this redirect for deletion your "delete" opinion is implied, and restating "delete" is both redundant, and poses the risk that whichever administrator closes this discussion overcounts you. Note: I am not asserting this was an act of bad faith on your part.
 * Please try to refrain from challenging my good faith -- I have never challenged that you are well-intentioned when I disagree with you. And I would appreciate you showing me the same courtesy.
 * I already offered you a quote: "If the government’s allegations against detainees are uniformly credited, the following picture of the current population emerges ... 130 stayed in Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other guest- or safehouses." Wittes and his colleagues footnote this passage with a list of captives that had a stay in a suspicious guest house offered as a justification for their continued detention.  And that list includes five of the Uyghurs, whose detention was justified due to an alleged stay in a "Uyghur house".  Let me stem any response that this paragraph is "original research" by pointing out that if this is something that should be considered "research", as opposed to "collation", then it is the research of Wittes and his colleagues -- an WP:RS.  It would not be my research.
 * No, the Wittes reference, alone, is not sufficient to write an article around. But this is not an article -- it is a redirect.  This reference alone is sufficient to justify this redirect.  Other references exist.  But why should I go to the effort of marshalling additional references when no one has acknowledged I already offered a fine reference?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but this out of context quote does not verify or justify the redirection in any way. The Quote does not even mention Uyghur. I suggest you provide us with a longer quote if you want to challenge this.


 * Could you please also quote the passage of the document that mention "Uyghur house" as you claim. Despite intense search i could not find the term "Uyghur house" in this context.


 * Further more to verify of justify Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda safe house the document or your quote from that document should at least mention Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad? The fact is the whole document not even mention once Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad.


 * In summary all you offer us for this exceptional claim that needs exceptional sources is a out of context quote from a document that does no even once mention Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad.


 * No i do not challenge your good faith but i do allow me to mention that when looking at this discussion here one could well think you are fillibustering. I for my part suggest speedy deletion. IQinn (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The key problem here -- you are ignoring my suggestion that Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad should redirect to Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to islamist militancy. I have changed the redirect to point there.  This long, authoritative document lists 130 captives whose captivity was justified due to an alleged stay in a suspicious guest house, and that list includes five captives who were alleged to stay in a Uyghur guest house.
 * WRT your frustration in finding which documents use the terms "Uighur house", Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad, and every other redirect you raised here -- this is solely because you excised several thousand valid and useful wikilinks. If you hadn't done so it would be a trivial matter to find the documents where the terms were used.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous! The document that you have quoted here and that is the only one that you have provided to us does not have the words "Uighur house", "Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad" and i addition you provide us with an out of context quote that does not mention the word Uighur at all.


 * I think you are working against the whole community. You just redirected the term to a POV article based on WP:OR that has been just written by yourself and that also does not have any reference that connects Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad with Al Qaeda nor does it has any reference that connects Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad with Islamic militants.


 * Don't you think it would have been the right way to get consensus from the community first for this and to wait the outcome of this discussion? I strongly oppose this. IQinn (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You frequently assert other contributors are lapsing from WP:Ownership. May I request you re-read this discussion and consider the possibility you have such a strong commitment to seeing this redirect deleted you are over-looking that changing it to redirect to a more narrowly focussed, neutrally written, well-referenced article obviates all your concerns?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You accuse me off WP:Ownership because i do not agree with you?. Looking back on this discussion i do see strong ownership behavior on your side and i see even signs of WP:Point and other disruptive behavior on your site. Anyway you failed to provide us with the sources that would justify the redirect to Al Qaeda and wasted quite a lot of our time by continually making false claims that you could not proof.


 * No the from you just written article is highly controversial and i do not see any reason why East Turkistan Organization safe house (Jalalabad) or Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad should link to this article. IQinn (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We are supposed to take others concerns seriously, and work towards compromise. I spent a considerable amount of time marshalling references, and drafting a more focussed article that I thought, and still think, addresses all your stated concerns.  You call the new article highly controversial.  I am disappointed.  I don't believe anyone has offered a meaningful, substantive, explanation here, or anywhere else, as to why the new article should be characterized as controversial.


 * I am going to repeat my concern that characterizing material that is neutrally written and cites WP:RS in a fair manner as "misleading", "questionable", or "controversial" when a wikipedian personally doubts the credibility of the what those WP:RS assert, is a lapse from WP:NPOV. Our personal opinion of the credibility of our WP:RS's assertions should be irrelevant.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah it is always the same misleading argument about RS that we hear from editors who are gaming the system to advance their personal POV. There is surely no doubt at all that the article you wrote is highly controversial and has been put together from WP:RS in violation of WP:SYN and you know this. IQinn (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, several of your replies here imply, or explicitly state I am not responding in good faith. As such I believe they lapse from compliance with no personal attacks.


 * My very first reply provided you with an excellent direct quote, which you have simply ignored. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No i did not ignore the quote. It is just the fact that the quote does not even mention "Uyghur guest house in Jalalabad" and therefor not verifies nor justify the redirections. IQinn (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - See also above. Target article is about a general phenomenon and some other general terms may be appropriate redirects, but single guest houses would not. That is a general objection independent of references on the claim / suspicion. We just should not have in such a case frmo the single item to a a general topic, especially not if it isn't even mentioned. The redirect should not serve as shortcut to the valid editorial solution namely stating and sourcing at the article about the detainee where he stayed and what that may have to do with his detainment and where necessary link directly to the article on the general topic. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)