Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 October 19

The nominated redirect was Deleted. Too vague & not widely used. Wikipedia should be documenting usage; not creating it. -- JLaTondre 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is insufficiently vague and could never be used in a NPOV context. This redirect should be deleted. RWR8189 22:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Commissions Act of 2006 is not NPOV, it expresses an official government position on the name and purposes of a bill that is widely called the Torture Bill throughout the net. Whig 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to back up that claim? In a google search, the top results that come up under "torture bill" have to do with the McCain backed torture bill that President Bush signed in January. As I said before, this redirect is vague and POV.--RWR8189 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. it is the most common term for what Bush just signed. — goethean ॐ 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Do a Google search for "torture bill" the first thing that comes up is an article related to the McCain Detainee Amendment. This redirect is too vague--RWR8189 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bill is designed to define legal limits on torture for United States federal goverment interests. The "Torture Bill" aspect is not in question and other torture bill related topics could be added in time. It is a point of view to delete this. Let the community define the meaning of this topic. As to google queries, time as always will change the current results of searching "torture bill". --Ralphie 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldnt find a credible source that uses the term "Torture Bill" (ironically they are probably afraid to). If we leave Torture Bill in place, someone will want to create an Anti-Torture Bill redirect. John Vandenberg 05:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if a credible source could be found per the above, it isn't even the most current usage. If a disambig were created, I would oppose this link being in the list, but that's a content dispute. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep'". This is not a spurious or obscure reference. It is in common usage. An explanatory note can be attached if one feels there is something ideological about the term. However, deleting it is clearly also ideological, as the political orientation of at least the first person to suggest deletion it would seem to confirm. I click on the person's link and up pops a picture of Ronald Reagan. Editing and erasing history is not what wikipedia is about. Explain, don't obscure.

The problem is that the redirect itself is obscure, "Torture Bill" could refer to any number of things. Wikipedia doesn't give us a good way to "explain" a redirect.--RWR8189 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not just for POV, but more for vagueness. Disambig page mentioning that its the way detractors refer to a few different bills might be appropriate. --SilverStar_talk 07:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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