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, default to keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Gaza flotilla massacre → Gaza flotilla raid ( links to redirect • history • stats)
• 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre → Gaza flotilla raid ( links to redirect • history • stats)
• 2010 Gaza massacre → Gaza flotilla raid ( links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Mavi Marmara Massacre → Gaza flotilla raid ( links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. POV titled redirects. Close to G10, IMHO, but not quite there. But still... All three were blanked by an IP and I reverted the blanking, but I agree that the redirects are POV and inappropriate as they are. TexasAndroid ( talk) 20:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete – ╟─ Treasury Tag► constabulary─╢ 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep Gaza flotilla massacre - Redirects are POV neutral - "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion" WP:RNEUTRAL - for good reasons as explained. This redirect was created during the early development of the target article and is a plausible search term - see here, for example. Delete 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre and 2010 Gaza massacre as unlikely search terms. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 21:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC). reply

• Comment. You say this is a "plausible" search term without giving proof for their plausibleness. Your argument falls into WP:GHITS, which is an invalid reason, as google hits should be backed up by reliable sources. Also see wp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases. Maashatra11 ( talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment given I made two out of three of these you should have mentioned this deletion request on my talk page.

On the redirects themselves keep at least Gaza flotilla massacre as it seems to be in reasonable use - and just because the redirect title isn't NPOV doesn't mean it isn't useful. With regards to the latest addition keep Mavi Marmara Massacre as well as it seems to be getting a reasonable amount of traffic. And per WP:RNEUTRAL its in use by Sri Lanka's Daily Mirror which seems to be fairly reliable ( source) - they are mentioned in the BBC's Sri Lanka country profile prominently. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• You can clearly see that this article is under category "Opinions", thus dubiously reliable and non-NPOV. Maashatra11 ( talk) 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Very sorry. My first RFD in a long, long time, and I did it manually because of the multiple-redirect nature. I'm used to doing deletions via scripts, which also handle the notifications automagically. While doing this one manually, such totally slipped my mind. Again, I'm sorry. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 14:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete " Gaza flotilla massacre" is a redundant redirect (see my comment below) and all the redirects are non-neutral. They imply that the 9 deaths on The Gaza flotilla resulted from a massacre by the IDF, when the truth is quite the contrary in that that it was reportedly an act of self defense against the intentions of the activists to massacre the IDF soldiers. Maashatra11 ( talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep, we also use the redirect "Gaza massacre" to the "Gaza War" article, which could also be called POV. Doing as Maashatra11 suggests and only go by the IDF claims, would in reality be POV. Kermanshahi ( talk) 16:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

  Gaza massacre is seemingly kept because it is an allegedly common name in the Arab world for the Gaza war. It doesn't mean that "Gaza flotilla massacre" is also a common name in the Arab world for the flotilla raid.
  If I'm wrong in my preposition that it isn't common/popular wording, please include the phrase "Gaza flotilla massacre" in the Gaza flotilla raid article, just like "Gaza massacre" is incorporated in the lead of the Gaza war article. Maashatra11 ( talk) 16:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment also Keep Mavi Marmara Massacre - valid search term; no basis in policy for deletion Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep - POV, but in use. These are phrases that have been used to refer to this event, and as such are plausible search terms; POV isn't usually a good enough reason to delete a redirect that might be useful. Robofish ( talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. You say these are "plausible" search terms "that have been used to refer to this event" without giving proof for their plausibleness. See wp:RNEUTRAL : "...If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.". Please bring reliable, third-party sources that include one of these phrases. Maashatra11 ( talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment a reliable third-party source has been provided for the final one - and the Sri Lankans aren't even a muslim country. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• I didn't notice any reliable third-party source here. Please clarify what you are talking about. And Which Sr Lankans?? You're puzzling me. Maashatra11 ( talk) 22:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

http://www.dailymirror.lk/print/index.php/opinion1/12233.html -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - For example Gulf News is a reliable source and uses Mavi Marmara Massacre here and likewise ArabNews uses Gaza Flotilla Massacre here. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• I guess they account as reliable. Anyway "2010 Gaza flotilla massacre" and "2010 Gaza massacre" don't seem to be very plausible. Maashatra11 ( talk) 22:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Also The Daily Telegraph refers to the Gaza Flotilla Massacre here. I agree, as stated above, that 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre" and "2010 Gaza massacre" are not plausible and should be deleted. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 22:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• I agree with you, notwithstanding the fact that these are clear violations of wp:NPV. Maashatra11 ( talk) 23:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Gaza flotilla massacre at least, the others I am not so sure about. Seems a likely search term. Lots of things are named "massacres". The St. Valentines's Day Massacre for instance. Calling it that doesn't really imply a judgement, that's just its name. Boston Massacre. Etc. Herostratus ( talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep except for the 2010 redirects. "Raid" will be more enduring name in English-speaking world but purpose of redirect is to enable finding an article. Deletion because of "non-neutrality" of search term is a POV edit that itself violates Wikipedia policy on re-directs which says that non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion. Word "massacre" has been used in MSM incl. by heads of state, see, e.g., http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0601/Turkish-PM-calls-Israeli-raid-on-Gaza-flotilla-ship-a-massacre and http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/jerusalem-post/mi_8048/is_20100601/protesters-decry-gaza-flotilla-massacre/ai_n53871014/ But the "2010" entries are clutter. LakeAtNight ( talk) 08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Question I think that "Gaza flotilla massacre" is redundant, because in order to reach this redirect, you have to type "Gaza flotilla" in the search box, and what you get is only "Gaza flotilla raid" (the destination article) and "Gaza flotilla massacre" - the controversial redirect. You can try it by yourselves. I really cannot understand why such a redirect is necessary at all? see The Wikipedia page of Reasons for not deleting - How is it exactly useful? On which terms does it aid searches? Maashatra11 ( talk) 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:CANADIAN COMMUNITES → Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Misspelled, unused (no incoming links and 0 pageviews in most months), and unlikely to be used. Also, it is quite long for a shortcut and could be replaced by alternatives, such as WP:CANCOM ( WP:WCC and WP:WPCC are already taken). (Redirect creator notified using Template:RFDNote) -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 18:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - redundant and deletion causes no harm. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree that this redirect should be deleted per what Black Falcon and Bridgeplayer said. --[[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, implausible due to misspelling. However, I've gone ahead and created WP:Canadian communities → Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities, since (if I had any interest in Canadian communities) that's what I'd expect to be able to type in.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 18:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Lsit of evangelion albums → Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

This page is an implausible typo receiving close to zero hits per month. I assume an article was created under this name and subsequently moved. Airplaneman ✈ 16:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - recently created redirect and not a particularly plausible typo. No harm in deleting. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete, implausible and unnecessary. Do we have an opinion on whether April 17 is within the scope of "recently created" per CSD R3?  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment - FWIW the test I apply is whether it has been around long enough to be widely picked up by the mirrors. As can be seen here, this one hasn't. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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 speedily converted to a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• List of resignations → List of resignations of notable government figures ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect created by recent page move. This title is extremely vague and does not necessarily correlate to the redirect target. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep Convert to a disambiguation page - it seems like "list of resignations" would be a much more common search term than "list of resignations of notable government figures". It doesn't seem misleading to me, at least - this is the kind of page I'd expect a "list of resignations" search to lead me to. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 16:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Note: vote changed to "convert to a disambiguation page" per Bridgeplayer's work. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 19:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - we don't have any other lists of resignations... – xeno ^talk 16:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

  No longer true after Bridgeplayer's moves below - changing !vote to convert to dab page and suggest speedy closure. – xeno ^talk 18:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Convert to disambiguation page - ermm; I've gone and done it. It increases its utility whilst dealing with the concern of the nominator. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 17:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination in light of conversion to dab page by Bridgeplayer. Someone please speedy close. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Google tests → Wikipedia:Search engine test ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Search engine test. Not only is this directly relevant, but since Google test redirects here, it is logical to have the plural pointing at the same place. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, I'd be fine with that. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 14:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Search engine test per Bridgeplayer. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 16:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect, but the new target proposed above has itself been deleted.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Featured topics → Wikipedia:Featured topics ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I almost feel like ignoring all rules on this one, just because it seems like it could aid Wikipedia readers (rather than just editors) find featured content. It can't hurt to make our featured content more accessible. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:IAR this isn't just an "admin" Wiki page but one readers are expected to use. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

  No inexperienced reader would search for "featured topics" – ╟─ Treasury Tag► Speaker─╢ 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

  Hmm, can we be sure of this? It seems like it only has potential to help readers, even if few users ever use it. Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 02:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Arbitrarily0 makes a fair point. The possible benefits outweigh any perceived harm. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Feature, a disambig. I added a hatnote tha points to Wikipedia:Featured topics there to preserve the redirect's function.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Dead-end articles → Wikipedia:Dead-end pages ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─ Treasury Tag► draftsman─╢ 08:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator as WP:R#DELETE #6. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there are no incoming links other than those related to this RFD so this can be deleted without harm. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 18:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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 Spamdexing. NAC. —  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 03:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Article spam → Wikipedia:Spam ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Cross-namespace redirect with little value, per WP:REDIR ╟─ Treasury Tag► consulate─╢ 08:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nominator as WP:R#DELETE #6. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Retarget, as Bridgeplayer said, works as well (actually, better). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^{( talk)} 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Retarget to Spamdexing - this redirect gets a decent amount of traffic so it's obviously useful. The retarget points to a page that will be helpful to searchers and, since Wikipedia:Spam is given as a hat note, it will also be working for those looking for the project page. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Bridgeplayer.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 05:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Junpei Morita → Uninhabited Planet Survive! ( links to redirect • history • stats) 

Article should be deleted as it only redirects to a single role that this person has worked on. For example, Megumi Takamoto used to redirect to the Winry Rockbell article, but it was deleted. Geg ( talk) 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I don't like targeting marginal people at individual roles. Firstly, when they have multiple roles, which one do you point to?; for example why not target this guy at GoGo Sentai Boukenger? Secondly, the redirect inhibits article creation. Better to have a red link that will encourage editors to assess notability. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I think actors should not be redirected to their roles, full stop. Either an article on the person exists or it doesn't, but a redirect is not a helpful solution. Robofish ( talk) 00:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply