Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 6

October 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2010

Animal Number 64



 * 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) 12:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Lahcen Ikassrien (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There are serious POV and soapbox issues with this redirect. Also, there are no incoming links and it's relatively new. There is no reference to this name in the article and the references used in the creator's justification (on his talk page) cites is of dubious authenticity, is not notable, and does not clearly identify Lahcen Ikassrien as the person refered to as "Animal Number 64" Selket Talk 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom is correct on all counts. In a nutshell, not a plausible search term. May be related to the subject in some way, but that doesn't make it a plausible search term or a useful redirect. Sw &spades; rm Talk 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - POV and soapbox are not applicable, as such, since a redirect is solely a search term; see WP:RNEUTRAL. However, the reader needs to know why they were taken to a particular page and, at the moment, that is not the case. El País is a highly reliable source so, I have to say, I am surprised the nominator hasn't added relevant content to the body of the article. If such content is added then I should be inclined to keep the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a few sentences to the article. Far from perfect but i think enough to keep things going and i hope it is enough to satisfy your request? It is a highly notable story and i am planning to expand on that after finding the time to get more into the topic. IQinn (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 1) There are neither POV nor soapbox issues. Not at all (WP:VAGUEWAVE). 2) Redirects itself do not need to be NPOV. WP:RNEUTRAL. 3) The redirect was created six month ago so it is not new. (no valid reason for deletion). 4) Their are high profile references. For example: Center For The Study of Human rights and Animal Number 64 EL PAIS 5) The references are from  highest reliability and not at all "dubious": The Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA) of the University of California, Davis is high profile academic source and El Pais is on of the world's leading newspaper organization comparable with the New York Times. 6) These sources 100% identify Lahcen Ikassrien as the person refered to as "Animal Number 64" and additional sources do this as well. There is no doubt that this was Lahcen Ikassrien. 7) The redirect is useful and aids searches. 8) No valid reason for deletion. - IQinn (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Point "7" you made is the only important question, and in my opinion, it's wrong. It's not a prolific enough expression to be a useful redirect. Sw &spades; rm Talk 01:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even prolific numbers add up over the range of 30, 50 or 100 years. Wikipedia is a long time project. The term is helpful and there are no reasons for deletion. Did you change your mind about point 1-6? You said "Nom is correct on all counts". I have shown that most of his assumptions are incorrect. Point 8 is very strong: No valid reason for deletion. Let me also add point 9) Keep per WP:REDIRECT. IQinn (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, you must have mistaken my meaning. I stand by "nom is correct on all counts", however not all counts need to be discussed, the important question is whether or not the redirect is a plausible search term. Sw &spades; rm Talk 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Why shouldn't it be a plausible search term? You have to explain that. I have shown that the points the nom raised are incorrect. Right, we do not need to discuss all these points that i brought forward when nobody raises valid counter arguments then we can assume that all these 9 points are correct and that there is no valid reason for deletion and in addition it should not be deleted per WP:REDIRECT. IQinn (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order -- Above it is claimed that: "These sources 100% identify Lahcen Ikassrien as the person refered to as 'Animal Number 64'... There is no doubt that this was Lahcen Ikassrien."  The sources are reliable.  But they don't say Lahcen was identified as "animal number 64".  They merely recount that Lahcen said he was identified as animal number 64.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I noticed this redirect the day User:Iqinn made it. The advice I offered that day still stands.  I think if the article covers Lahcen's assertion he was issued an ID bracelet, and told he was "animal number 64" then it is reasonable to retain the redirect.  However, if no one adds coverage of Lahcen recounting being called animal number 64 to the body of the article the redirect is a problem, and it should be deleted.  Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You personal think this is notable and should be added to the article? I think it is highly notable and has highly reliable sources. Yeah obviously nobody had found the time yet to add more information yet. But it has been proven that there are highly reliable sources and that it is notable. The redirect should not just be deleted in a rush. I will add more information myself to the article in the near future if nobody else finds the time to do it. The sources are there and it is highly notable. IQinn (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Ukrainian People's Militia



 * 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 moved to AFD by nominator. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Ukrainian Auxiliary Police (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete page (undocumented group), change to redirect to Ukrainian Auxiliary Police Львівське (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy close - edit dispute. What we have are two pages that present conflicting accounts of the same situation. The redirect Ukrainian People's Militia should be restored to an article then the status of the two pages determined either by talk page consensus or through AFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Splattergate



 * 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → No Pressure (film) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Recently created redirect. Novel/obscure name used in a blog. Gobonobo T C 01:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - referred to in the article and plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - referred to in the article and a more than plausible search term for this subject, as a Google search will show. Jprw (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - referred to in both increasing numbers of reliable sources and Weblogs, and is therefore bound to be entered as a search term by Wikipedia users. Tucci78 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)