Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 4

November 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2010

Talk:Kart Barwan guesthouse



 * 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 broken link that has now been fixed. Talk pages of redirects should always redirect to the talk page of the target. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Al-Qaeda safe house (links to redirect • [ history] • ) Any good reason to redirect Talk:Kart Barwan guesthouse to Al-Qaeda safe house? IQinn (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a mistake. It's supposed to point to the article's talk page. The link has been corrected now. Jafeluv (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

False memory syndrome hoax



 * 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. The argument to delete is stronger - there is no need for this particular redirect to find the article when searching on that term, unlike Franklin coverup hoax which is completely different to the title of the article.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Unlikely to be used, source doesn't appear in target article, although it would be the only possible target. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * → False memory syndrome (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete - this term is used is some forums but not, so far as I have been able to establish, in reliable sources. If a reliably sourced section is added to the target then the redirect would be fine. Until then, it would simply confuse readers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's useful. It really doesn't matter whether it's listed in a reliable source or not.  The main thing is that it's not a harmful redirect.   Jeremy  stalked (law 296) 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is harmful. Implies somebody calls it that, which appears to be false (and, in at least one case, referring to a completely different concept than covered in the article).  And, since you just created it, only being improbable is adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See remarks below. Jeremy stalked (law 296) 20:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is harmful because it misleads a searcher. Someone following the link will expect to find something about a hoax and they won't. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alex Constantine's Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, published by Feral House, asserts connections between the CIA and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. False Memory Syndrome is alleged to be a hoax invented at the behest of the CIA.  If you like, I can add information from that book to the article, and then the redirect will no longer be "harmful" as you define it. Jeremy  stalked (law 296) 20:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

KEEP!!! False memory syndrome is a hoax and no doubt those who want it removed from wiki as a hoax are the very same sicko's that are causing people to be diagnosed with it aka pedophiles and abusers who would love nothing more than to shut their victims up by calling them "crazy" or saying they are "only imagining things." That is always how scum like that operates, why shouldn't victims get a break for once. Keep the hoax page going, and lets maybe help some victims instead of further victimizing them by supporting their lying, perverted, freakish attackers. I'm sure that if you ask a Rosenburg, I merely imagined them molesting and beating me, ask me I'll tell you the truth on that matter. Those "men" should be castrated and then terminated a month later. If they did what they did to me to your daughter (unless you're a sick pedophile) then you would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamborine64 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Tamborine64 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)TAM BORINE
 * Comment I've previously looked at a few newly created redirects on a purely logistical and practical basis. In this case, typing in 'False memory syndrome' leads to the article; 'False memory syndrome hoax' takes you nowhere. I can see the point of redirects based on common mis-spellings and some popular typos, but I cannot really see the point of redirects whose names contain the full name of the article they redirect to. Please note that this assessment takes no account of the subject matter concerned. On whether or not the subject of the article is a 'hoax' or not I am not giving an opinion. Peridon (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Observe: Franklin coverup hoax vs. Franklin coverup, derived from the book by that name. Jeremy stalked (law 296) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try it with the one in question here - with hoax it goes nowhere. I'm talking about typing in the search bar. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Franklin case, both go to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Here, the target is a shorter name than the redirect. Different scenario. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in the Franklin case, the suggestions of 'hoax' and coverup' are sourced in the article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is not useful, when searching for the topic, to add another word to what is already the full title of the article. It gives the misleading impression, in the search box, that there is a separate article about some hoax involving the subject of the main article. The only "use" of this redirect is to express a POV about the subject, such as that espoused by Tamborine64 above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that I made similar arguments about Franklin coverup hoax (which points to the same page as Franklin coverup) yet the Wikipedians shouted my arguments down. If Franklin coverup hoax is valid, then your "Delete" vote should be discounted for the reasons you've given.  On the other hand, if your argument is sound, then why is Franklin coverup hoax, which similarly pushes a POV in the Wikipedia search box, allowed to continue to persist?  I think this discussion and the previous discussion about Franklin coverup hoax demonstrate a clear systemic bias at Wikipedia.  I would like to see the very same people give their arguments for why Franklin coverup hoax should remain while False memory syndrome hoax must be deleted. Jeremy  stalked (law 296) 18:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also note that I have asked User:Ningauble when he will be nominating Franklin Coverup Hoax for deletion, as I would expect him to find that redirect as objectionable to his principles as this one.  Jeremy stalked (law 296) 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary. A mish-mash of rationalizations for the deletion of the redirect have been presented:

First, that the redirect is unlikely to be used. I would argue that merely by adding the redirect so that it can appear in the Wikipedia search hints when typing "false memory syndrome", it will generate traffic, exactly as.

Second, that the term "hoax" is not sourced in the article. In fact, I (or anyone else) can dig up reliable sources (one of which I've already named) and add them to the article so as to neutralize this criticism.

Third, that by adding the word "hoax" to the end of an existing search term, one is gaming the Wikipedia search hinting engine to push a POV. This argument was brought up during the discussion of the deletion for Franklin coverup hoax, but was shouted down.

A systemic bias is obvious, even if we cannot pin it on any particular person or group of people at this time.  Jeremy stalked (law 296) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can't provide a credible reference that the CIA wants anyone to believe that FMS is a hoax; they would want people to believe in FMS. I don't know what reference you may have had in mind.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Alex Constantine nor Feral House can possibly be considered a reliable source about anything, except possibly his own opinions in his article.. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Vince shamwow



 * 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 keep. Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous redirect. Very unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Vince Offer (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Keep very likely search term, since he's Vince, the ShamWow Guy, made famous by his infomercial and commerical for the shamwow product. 76.66.203.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep - this is a common handle used around the forums, see here, for example. The stats show that the nominator's claim that this is a "Very unlikely search term." is inaccurate - it gets around 200 hits per month. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Intel Concurrent Collections (tmp)



 * 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 delete done by User:Anthony Appleyard. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Concurrent Collections (links to redirect • [ history] • ) removing redirect which I myself have erroneously created. Ipsign (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you can do this through a CSD. I've nommed it for that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you've done it with the wrong page (sorry for confusion). I've removed {db-author} notice from Intel Concurrent Collections (which I would like to keep). It is a different page Intel Concurrent Collections (tmp) which I'd like to delete. Ipsign (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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