Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 20

October 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2010

Colonel Benjamin O. "Chappie" Davis



 * 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 by JohnCD as WP:CSD G7. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Red link in list mistakenly conflates two officers: Chappie James and Benjamin O. Davis Jr.. Self-nom. Jokestress (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as G7 and tagged as such. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lahore safe house



 * 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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


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

Self-created redirect without any form of proper connection, relevance or in that matter, verifiability. I can affirm, without having to bet any money, that there is no Al-Qaeda safehouse in the city of Lahore and neither has such a phenomenon been heard of. Redirect should be deleted because 1) it is inaccurate and misleading 2) rarely anyone would perform such a search. Mar4d (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. Mar4d (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, for what it's worth, that Al-Qaeda safe house is the target for 182 redirects, most (all?) of them created by the same editor, including things like Algerian al Qaida guest house, Peshawar, Taliban guest house, Spin Boldak, House of the Algerians and El Haram Hotel, Karachi. Most of them are highly improbable search terms. Fram (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 182..it's true. As far as i can see they were all created by the same user. I think quite a few of them are also misleading. For example: Taliban safehouse Taliban safehouses Taliban house should not link to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nominator statement "I can affirm, without having to bet any money, that there is no Al-Qaeda safehouse in the city of Lahore" is not meaningful since a safe house, by definition, would not be publicised or published. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lahore is not mentioned in the target and hence confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to User:Iqinn, for drawing my attention to this discussion. Nominator either forgot, or didn't feel it was necessary, to follow the request instantiated on the article when they initiated this discussion that they inform the contributor who created the redirect.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I notified you very shortly after the nomination. So the most likely case is that i was simply faster than the nominator. What's for? AnywayIQinn (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies on that. Yes, I indeed forgot to notify you after the nomination. Will reply soon on the issue; Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT the assertion in the nomination that al Qaeda never really had any safe houses in Lahore, may I suggest that this is not the right question? That al Qaeda maintained at least one safe house in Lahore, that recruits, including Jose Padilla, that training to construct and employ radiological weapons was conducted there, that this dirty bomb plot was thwarted, was one of the top claims the Bush administration made as to its success in keeping the US homeland safe. Padilla wasn't charged with participation in a "dirty bomb plot". Neither was Binyam Mohammed. Even if, for the sake of argument, Jose Padilla's conviction was a mistake, that he wasn't a terrorist, or terrorist wannabe, and that the Lahore house  he was captured  where he was alleged to have been trained and recruited to employ dirty bombs in US cities, was not a safe house, and that none of the other men captured  with him  there, or formerly associated with that house were associated with al Qaeda, the house had been widely described as an al Qaeda safe house in Lahore. As per WP:Verifiability it is what authoritative, verifiable sources have written that counts -- not our personal doubts.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment i think the nominator asked the right questions. Redirects should never been misleading or confusing. IQinn (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT the "not a likely search term" assertion... First, while enabling readers who come to our articles via search engines is one justification for using redirects, I suggest it is not the only valid reason. I suggest that when WP:RS refer to one topic, or one phenomenon, using a variety of terms, redirection is a perfectly valid way to redirect readers from one of our articles to the article on that phenomenon.  Second, I suggest the use of this phrase in WP:RS means it is not really an unlikely search term after all.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Bridgeplayer and nom. Little value as a search term, confusing and possibly misleading. IQinn (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- After being advised of this discussion I created a draft, at User:Geo Swan/not ready yet/Lahore safe house. I believe the references I supplied in this draft confirm that the term was used widely.  I think one of the purposes of a redirect is to serve as a placeholder for a term that could eventually merit an article of its own.  I invite those participating in this discussion to take a look at the draft and give me some feedback as to whether they think (1) the draft is currently sufficient to serve as a stub, for this term, in article space; (2) if not, some suggestions as to what further elements they think would be required, prior to a move to article space.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect can be replaced by a stub at any time. If that is done then the RFD would be closed as moot. Certainly your userspace draft looks a valid stub though it would be open to editors to take it to AFD if they so wished. Having said that, Al-Qaeda safe house is very short so 'Lahore safe house' is probably better as a section there. If you make that section, and provided your addition is not rapidly reverted, then I would change my !vote to support the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan - one of the motivations behind this nomination was the notability/publicity of the topic; clearly, I can see that you've demonstrated the existence of such a safehouse in the city. However, judging from the scarcity, it would still be erroneous to mention that the topic has had substantial or very wide coverage. Safehouses and bases of militants have almost always been heard of in northwest and western Pakistan and sometimes the port city of Karachi. Evidently, there are few (and I say this with special emphasis) instances where Lahore has ever been mentioned. Even the number of safe houses is unverified, either one or more. We hear of dozens of safe houses, sometimes found in the most random of locations, yet very few are notable or recieve wide very wide coverage - and this would apply to the Lahore Al Qaeda safe houses. As for your article, I suggest that you go for it. However, like Bridgeplayer, I would probably see it as a section in Al-Qaeda safe house as I don't think the topic is important enough to merit its owns standing. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep per RfD. I can't see how someone would be confused by this redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 07:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * And Note these are terms used or widely used in the proceedings and documentation relating to Guantanemo bay detainees, and are therefore likely search terms. Rich Farmbrough, 07:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Playte



 * 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 as a dab. Ruslik_ Zero 20:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Byte (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No connection to the article as far as I can tell. Nothing links to it, and barely anybody would look for such a search term. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  09:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate - I have created a model page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

127.1



 * 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 withdrawn nomination. My mistake, my checks were not thorough enough. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  06:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Localhost (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is not an IP address and thus does not appear to have any connection with the actual localhost 127.0.0.1 :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  09:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one that's going to sort the sheep from the goats, as it were. The nominator is wrong.  Per W. Richard Stevens, keep. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I see that when I ping 127.1 it gets translated to 127.0.0.1, so it does work.  Now can anyone explain why because I don't have a clue. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)