Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 5

March 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 5, 2013

1821 freedom war



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → Filiki Eteria (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Neologism meant to refer to the Greek War of Independence, too generic and not actually used anywhere, whether in Greek or in English Constantine  ✍  21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete too vague to be useful. If this was 1821 war then it could be converted to a dab like War of 1812 (disambiguation).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Joseph Wharfe



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bundled nominations of an editor that does not appear to be editing constructively. Some of the redirects are old enough, and not so obviously wrong that a G3 deletion would be in order, so I'm nominating them all here. As best I can tell, they are all baseless. Monty 845  21:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * → God (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Kailash Purryag (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Hosni Mubarak (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Comic Genius (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Gok Wan (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Delete all, completely concur with nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all, pure vandalism, agree with nom.  dci  &#124;  TALK   02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

આર્જંટિના



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → Argentina (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete because this language is not related to Argentina. Gorobay (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, this spelling is unrelated to the native or English-language spellings relating to the target -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is not the native translation for Argentina.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

National Oceanic



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible redirect - dubious history from the creator too Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Implausible redirect - MrX 15:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, if you would just withdraw this RFD and slap a WP:CSD tag on it, it would be quickly deleted. That goes for Atmospheric Administration too. Isn't this why we have R3? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think it justifies an R3, then just do that in addition. There's no need to withdraw the RfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete nonsensical adjective -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Four pages Google hits points to NOAA. However, I don't think this is justifiable enough to warrant a non-vague redirect. National Oceanic on its own is still nonsense.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The redirect serves no purpose, as anyone typing "National Oceanic" in the search box will see "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" among the top result in the "lookahead" process. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Atmospheric Administration



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Implausible redirect - dubious history from the creator too Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Implausible redirect - MrX 15:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as Implausible. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete on its own, this phrase is nonsense.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Passive voice



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Grammar (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I earlier mentioned this redirect as a deletion candidate at Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 22 and I'm nominating it now. The target page says nothing about passive voice. Wikipedia doesn't appear to have any policy or project page about this, so we shouldn't have any redirects in the Wikipedia namespace until we do. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Having this as a redirect has been a deliberate choice in the past. The repeated consensus at WT:MoS has been that we do not have a policy on the use of the passive voice: the chosen way to publicise the absence of a policy is to have a target for queries about passive, but no content.  You'll probably find it somewhere here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the way to tell people we don't have a policy is to have red links at every page that in any way resembles the name Passive voice. A redirect to another page says that we do have a policy but the link is broken. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates the principal of least astonishment, far more likely to confuse than enlighten. Siuenti (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * suggestion If we deliberately do not have a policy on passive voice, can we add this to the MOS and point the various redirects at that? Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete No offense to Kevin or anyone who came up with that consensus, but that's absurd. This goes beyond WP:ASTONISH to the point where we're actively misleading users. This is a completely inappropriate use of a redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ethnic problem in Sri Lanka



 * 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 retarget to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Any problems with the target page are outside the scope RfD and should be addressed through the appropriate processes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * → Sri Lankan Civil War (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

deletion, Ethnic problem is an odd and not neutral title. We define ethnic matters as conflicts rather problems. Otherwise it would become non neutral and become promotional 131.107.0.116 (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn’t a conflict a problem? Anyway, redirects need not be neutral. Gorobay (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ethnic conflicts are problems to countries. Then title should be corrected as Ethnic conflict problem. Then it will become odd.

Problem means there is a discrimination, conflict means there may be a discrimination.


 * following criteria are applying to the page
 * The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine
 * The redirect is offensive - only using ethnic problem
 * The redirect constitutes self-promotion - As mentioned bellow, civil war may not the only ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka
 * The redirect might cause confusion - There is edit war to which page this should be redirected. 131.107.0.116 (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this should be an article, the Civil War is not the only ethnic problem in Sri Lanka. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka which is a broader topic. Siuenti (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka per Siuenti. "Conflict" and "Problem" are synonyms.- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Retarget to Sri Lankan Civil War. No one has proved current problem has any relationship to historical events mentioned in Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. 124.6.252.61 (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Siuenti. “Ethnic problem in Sri Lanka” does not imply that it is a current problem. Gorobay (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This must be  deleted  as specified in above. We can't discuss to where this should be retarted. It should discussed in talk page. Head notes added to two pages are clearly prove this redirect introducing confusion. So this must be deleted according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Reasons_for_deleting. Otherwise it should be forwarded to "Sri Lankan Civil War" page. "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" doesn't have any recognition. Why you can't understand it is a promotional page by a Sinhalese extremists. It wasn't worth to linked from Sri Lanka page. Please check the logs of Sri Lanka and behavior of the original author of "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" before making irrelevant counter arguments. It was decided to replaced irrelevant "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" with much more suitable "Sri Lankan Civil War". 124.6.243.11 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no articles which link to Ethnic problem in Sri Lanka other than in See Also sections. The entries in the See Also sections were actually meant to point to the Sri Lankan Civil War article.-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.