Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 21

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. I am reading a consensus on this that the best solution is ultimately a full article on the topic, and that the redirect is most likely not useful in its current form. Editors are strongly encouraged to create a full article on this topic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bahá'í News → Spiritual Assembly (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is a publication and it links to a section in an article that does not discuss it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í News is published by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States. Since it doesn't exist, National Spiritual Assembly is a good replacement, but that redirects to Spiritual Assembly. Feel free to create a full article on Bahá'í News however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirect as not useful, but without prejudice to either (a) the creation of an article about Bahá'í News itself, or (b) a redirect to a newly created article about the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States if that article discusses Bahá'í News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 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. — ξ^xplicit 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Scandals and allegations of the Henderson Police Department → Henderson Police Department (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Nothing links here, and this is just not a plausible search term. Should have been speedied R3, as this IS INDEED implausible. — Timneu22 · talk 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I would have speedy deleted it as an attack page, but since you list it here it had better be debated. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible redirect. This is not an attack page, the creator (a new user) was apparently inspired by Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department, but in this case there's probably not enough material for maintaining a stand alone article. Even the initial version wasn't an attack page, the ref. formatting was broken, but a reliable reference was included. Timneu tagged the article at the same minute without noticing it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, it is clearly implausible. The deny of R3 speedy was a mistake. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#R3 currently reads: "However, it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects." Amalthea 14:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral but leaning to delete (as redirect creator) I created the redirect (though not the page that existed before I did the redirect, which had an A1 speedy tag when I came onto it which clearly didn't fit). It didn't seem to me that any of the R speedies quite fit the redirect, but if I had known this noticeboard existed (I do now) I might have nom'ed it here myself (or not done the redirect and A10 tagged the article, though that would have been chutzpahish). Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a former article, now redirected to the article on the broader topic. And it has useful page history, particularly to the user now working on such a page via the Article Wizard. We routinely keep these redirects. We even have a redirect template for this purpose. (The notion that it's an attack page is ridiculous, and unjustifiably fails to WP:AGF.) --Bsherr (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullshit. It's not a former article. It was an article for what, 8 hours 90 minutes? — Timneu22 · talk 14:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timneu22, you contradict yourself. Yes, it was a former article, for 90 minutes, with a useful page history, and no animal excrement. --Bsherr (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it was created in error as an article doesn't mean it was actually an article. This is a bullshit redirect that no one will ever search for. That's implausible, and arguments to the contrary are just ridiculous. There's nothing in the history worth keeping. Merge the talk page if you must, but no one is searching for this. — Timneu22 · talk 14:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user who created it did not create it in error, and has stated an intention to work on the article using the article wizard, for which the page history would be useful. Plausibility as a search term is just one factor, and I suggest the other considerations outweigh it. Other than that it apparently annoys you, this redirect is completely harmless, is it not? --Bsherr (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please tell me: is the redirect a term that would be searched for often? Does any article link here, and would any article link here in a reasonable fashion? The answers are no. — Timneu22 · talk 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those are certainly valid arguments for deletion, but in my opinion, they don't outweigh the valid arguments I advanced for keeping, thus, my !vote. --Bsherr (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, what are your "valid" arguments? You're saying that a page that will never be searched-for or linked-to is valid??? — Timneu22 · talk 17:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand what you mean by valid. --Bsherr (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There seems to be overwhelming opinion that this is not a plausible redirect. But I'll just let you respond to this: this is a page that won't be searched for, and nothing will ever link to it. Now tell me how this is a valid page to keep. — Timneu22 · talk 02:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I already did above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Such arrogance. You cannot answer a simple question. Whatever. I look forward to this implausible page being deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 09:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Ok, I'll repeat myself for your benefit. "It's a former article, now redirected to the article on the broader topic. And it has useful page history, particularly to the user now working on such a page via the Article Wizard. We routinely keep these redirects. We even have a redirect template for this purpose." Please don't employ personal attacks. --Bsherr (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • There were no personal attacks, just an attack on your bullshit presumption that this was ever an article of any substance. We do not routinely keep article titles that won't ever be linked to or searched for. That's what everyone else here is saying (implausible!!!!!) but you can't see this for some reason. — Timneu22 · talk 13:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see that it had "a useful page history" (although thankyou for writing it). It was never more than a redlink and EL to Deshira Selimaj, a single shooting incident related to this department. Not even, it seems, an especially controversial shooting. It is, IMHO, pejorative to keep this redirect in existence in relation to a police department that is not the subject of notable scandals and allegations. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this was never a decent article with decent or usable content, and it's not a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 21 October 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Coanda-1910 thermojet → Coanda-1910 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete redir. Coanda didn't build an engine (as the only previous use of this redir from List of aircraft engines implied (now removed)), he bought a Clerget engine for his aircraft. Also Coanda's aircraft wasn't a "thermojet" and although it's contentious to describe it as such (see Talk:Coanda-1910) there's not even any redir-related justification for this redir Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:RfD#When should we delete a redirect?. Rich Farmbrough, 07:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  

• Would that be on the basis of its history, or its links? For both of these, the majority of any content there is to do with its deletion, not its construction. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - I lack the expertise to comment whether or not this aircraft is a thermojet but some sources describe it as such, for example this Rumanian source here. The talk page is complex but does not appear to address this question directly. At the moment I see no reason to delete the redirect. However, if it can be reliably sourced that this is not a 'thermojet' then it should be deleted as misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:47, 1 November 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Circassian Genocide → Muhajir (Caucasus) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The Circassian Genocide should not be redirected to the Muhajir (Caucasus) article. There is much more information on the Circassian Genocide than is expressed in the Muhajir (Caucasus) article. The redirect should be removed, giving editors the ability to create a new, unique Circassian Genocide article. The two main reasons for the deletion of redirect are: 1) It is misleading and 2)According to my research in the above, history and stats links, 588 people have searched for "Circassian Genocide" and been led to "Muhajir (Caucasus). Nettieoneg (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation is as a result of Circassian Genocide. It is not true to redirect Genocide title the Muhajir subject. It is biased approach. ^[1]

Also, the "Muhajir (Caucasus)" assumes that all Circassians left due to religious purposes which is false. Circassians are made up of a few religious groups other than Islam. So the claim that they left solely for religion is a fabrication of facts.

Next, most Circassians and academic scholars consider this event a 'Genocide'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.212.61 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not only misleading, but it is borderline propaganda. Since this Wikipedia article is one of the first results on Google, someone is deliberately trying to ruin a fairly accurate and easily accessible source of Circassian information. Please reverse this redirection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.212.61 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

first of all we need to see the reason for this redirect, because it just doesn't make sense!!!! This is absurd, Wikipedia please change this back to it's original page. muhajir has nothing to do with Circassian genocide, muhajir is a person who migrates, and it's in arabic language, what has that to do with the systematic killing of Circassian people over a period of a 100 years and then the forced expulsion of the remaining survivors of the massacre??? it is false, misleading and an outright lie...

• I'm unfamiliar with the event, but I would point out that WP:NPOV for article titles deliberately doesn't apply to redirects. We accept a redirect where an event has two sides to it with hugely varying interpretations and we use redirects under both of the hugely loaded terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Andy... The thing here is that this article shows one perspective without speaking at all about the Circassian Genocide, which is the search term that redirects to this article. To put it into plainer terms... Imagine there was an article on Wikipedia called "Polish Jews killed in the Holocaust"... and imagine the title to this article was written in Hebrew... Now, imagine you went onto Wikipedia and you wanted to search for the killings of homosexual Serbian Christians during the Holocaust... But to your dismay, when you typed in "Killings of homosexual Serbian Christians during the Holocaust" you were redirected to "Polish Jews killed in the Holocaust" in Hebrew. I hope this makes sense to you. There is profound cultural identity involved with the Circassian Genocide. This has nothing to do with one side against the other... it has to do with having the ability to write an article that states facts which are backed up by scholars and leaders. There should be the ability to do this without someone having the ability to just arbitrarily redirect the search term to their page. I just want you to see that these two pages are connected by a thin string and one should not redirect to the other. Hopefully we can delete the redirect and move past this. Thanks for your time and advice.Nettieoneg (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still confused. I see a redirect of Circassian Genocide which points to an article that uses both "Circassian" and "Genocide" in its lead paragraph. I don't know the history here, I certainly don't know the partisan terminology in referring to it, but this does appear to be a legitimate redirect, and an appropriate target for that reidrect.

As I understand your last comment, you seem to be saying that the redirect is acceptable, but that it's a poor target to which it points (I cannot comment further). If, as you suggest, a better and more appropriate article is wanted, then we can still create that in the future. Create it under User:Nettieoneg/Circassian Genocide, then have an admin move it over the redirect, through the Requested Moves process.

That said though, it appears from your "There is profound cultural identity involved with the Circassian Genocide." comment that the difference between Muhajir (Caucasus) and Circassian Genocide would be one of WP:POV. That's a right old can of worms to be opening! Creating a separate article of Circassian Genocide would be a clear WP:POVFORK, which is against policy. RFD is certainly not the venue for it either (look at past policy issues re Armenian genocide and anything involving the Balkans).

In the current situation, given my current understanding, I see this redirect as appropriate and not requiring change or deletion (so that's a keep). Editing of the article itself in a neutral and encyclopedic manner is a separate issue, and outside the scope of RFD. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The tags for this appeared to be on the wrong article, so I've relocated them to the redir. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

changing the Circassian Genocide page to Muhajir (Caucasus) is a big mistake and misleading.... circassians fought for there land for 100 years till the last person who can carry a weapon. the 5000000 Circassian that are alive now are the descent of young kids women and old people that lost every thing and got deported out of there home land, they were put in ships like animals and shipped out. Muhajir in Arabic means Immigrant the Arabs used to call a couple thousand Circassian that ended up in Arab countries -out of a 1500000 circassian that were in other parts of the world- MUHAJIR cuz they didnt know the story of how Circassians ended up in there land. it is injustice, wrong and misleading to call the KILLING of ONE MILLION AND FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND human being migration —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKadkoy (talk • contribs) 14:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is inappropriate and misleading. 'Circassian genocide' is supposed to acknowledge the history of Circassians, how they were deported from their homeland, why this deportation is discussed to be a genocide, what lies in the history etc. Instead, the redirect is jumping to the end, and by disregarding the whole history, talking only about what they have been started to be called in the diaspora. And thus, it gives a misleading impression that as if the deportation and genocide argument was lying on the basis of Circassian's religious choice. This is not the case. First of all, Russians would fight with Circassians regardless of their religion because of the strategic importance of Circassians' homeland, and second, not all of the Circassians are not Muslim anyway.

If there is any sort of justification for this redirect, with the same argument, we should see the similar redirects, for example, for Jews who migrated to Turkish Republic to escape from Nazis (ie. muhajir (Jews)) because they also become Muhajir as well since they migrated to a Muslim country and there are many other similar examples that can be gathered under the same discussion.And yes!, one does not have to be a muslim to be considered as a Muhajir. It is just a verb in Arabic as translation of immigrant, and does not depend, what so ever, on the origin of the immigrants.

Long story in short, the redirect has nothing to with the main discussion of the Circassian Genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigha (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand your concern now. Would it be fair to say that you agree with the existence of a page (article or redirect) at Circassian Genocide, but that you are against the naming of the current article at Muhajir (Caucasus) ? If that's the case, then that's an issue of renaming the article and should be discussed at Talk:Muhajir (Caucasus). It's not the redirection that's the problem here, it's the article name - and so RFD doesn't need to be involved.

As this article is clearly about "the event known to one party as the Circassian Genocide" and also it is referred to under the name "Circassian Genocide" by a neutral WP:RS Reuters, I would support renaming the main article to this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This title is absolutely misleading and when searching 'Circassian Genocide' the page shouldn't be redirected. Not all Circassians are Muslim, nor did they all migrate due to religion. It was a savage killing and deportation of the Circassian people. Men, women, and children alike were violently kicked out of their countries or killed protecting it as best as they could. This was an ongoing war which ended traumatically. When anyone enters the words 'Circassian Genocide' into Google the first thing that comes up is a Wikipedia search result. It is truly upsetting to find such a sensitive matter to be redirected to 'Muhajir (Caucasus)'. Had I not known what the true meaning of muhajir was I may have accepted it but fortunately I do. Muhajir has nothing to do with the Circassian Genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckadkoy (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andy, this is not good enough, you think it's just a matter of changing the name!!! that means wikipedia is not paying attention to the contents of their pages, but the muhajir entry is different than what existed before on the circassian genocide page, it's an outrage to many for this to be done in the first place, with the advent of the internet and websites like wikipedia many people regained hope in a chance to have their story told as it is. and not be muddled up and confused with other terms, we are trying to correct the history that was rewritten by the propaganda machine of the big imperial states , and what is happening here today on wikipedia is sadly a prime example of it. the main problem is that wikipedia doesn't want to show the original Circassian genocide page now, I think the best solution is first: not relating those two pages together at all, and restoring the original page because it's not only the title but the information is misleading as well,, and this is why we have to stay on the same RFD page and discuss it here, once we move the discussion to the Talk page then we are agreeing to the redirect, and the content of the new page... and second: maybe it's better to have the muhajir entry deleted all together, it doesn't represent any truth about any one, and is a propaganda of the old regime and we know better now..

So please restore the original Circassian Genocide page, and have it protected so something like this cannot happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataraz (talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gratified that you recognise me as an outrageous lackey of the propaganda machine of the big imperial states, however if that's the case, someone owes me a lot of back pay! I can assure you I'm a purely goodwill lackey, working in a purely voluntary capacity.

There is no original page of Circassian Genocide, it was created from scratch as a redirect in August 2008. Muhajir (Caucasus) already existed before this, and doesn't appear to be a rename of another article. There was previously a page at Circassian genocide (note the small g, as the wiki is case-sensitive), but this was quite correctly deleted in 2006 as a WP:copyvio. The last version of that page was here and it was claimed to be a copyvio of circassianworld.com.

I cannot "restore the original Circassian Genocide page", as it's a copyvio. It was also removed four years ago, so I cannot see the urgency today. If there is a fourth "Circassian Genocide" page around, then please point me at it, as I haven't found it myself.

The appropriate action to take now is to discuss two issues, at the existing article's talk page: Talk:Muhajir (Caucasus). These would be the best name to rename it to, and also any content changes that are needed. It's likely that the content from circassianworld.com would be useful here, but we would have to use that as reference material, not for direct copying, or else we'd have another copyio.

There are two things that we cannot do, as forbidden by WP:POLICY. One is to breach copyright, the other is to have two articles on this same topic, as that would be a WP:POVFORK. I sympathise with the sentiments expressed in this discussion so far, but the fix is to rework the article at Muhajir (Caucasus), so as to use an appropriate name and to contain appropriate, encyclopedic and neutral content. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Page rename I've opened discussion of this on the article's talk page: Talk:Muhajir_(Caucasus)#Rename_to_Circassian_Genocide

I suggest that this is the best location to discuss a page rename, or other topics that might arise. This doesn't seem (in a technical sense) to be an issue about redirects, but rather about articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Page rename is not for here but rather for the talk page (where you have correctly initiated a discussion) or more formally at WP:RM. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how could it not have to do with the redirect??? before the redirect no one had a problem with it, it is the redirect that is the issue, and I'm not going to go to a different article and discuss changing it, while we have the article in question already existing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataraz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, when you searched for Circassian Genocide, you would find an article in which there was information backed by historical, scholarly, academical information. If you searched Muhajir, it would be the same. You are interested in showing "both sides" of this story, but redirecting this article to Muhajir is doing just the opposite. You are showing a side of this story in which Circassians left voluntarily because of religious reasons, a point that the previous "Circassian Genocide" article might have argued. Let the two pages exist indepedently. We do not need to rename Muhajir to Circassian Genocide, we simply need to put the old Circassian Genocide article back on, with it's original information, without a redirection. This would be the equivelant of redirecting "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Voluntary Exile"; you would be creating a biased and falsity of information. The redirection is what is causing the issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.234.164 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please either restore the original article, or at least let's discuss the reason for the redirect to begin with, and by your admission Andy, you do not know about this issue, so how could you judge on the suitability of the redirect??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataraz (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Andy hear me out, if it's only a copyright issue with Circassian world, then how about this option: wikipedia cancels the redirect and deletes the old Circassian genocide page until someone puts up a new page together with more material in it, then we can name that page Circassian genocide without having to deal with changing the title and the contents of the Muhajir page? is this a good solution? please let us know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataraz (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, these are two issues (name and content) and they ought to be discussed at Talk:Muhajir (Caucasus). You can then (according to our usual policies on neutrality, sourcing and consensus) make the article say whatever is necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and take to WP:RM. This is a valid redirect since this is mentioned in the target. Redirects do not imply support for any position - see WP:RNEUTRAL. I note the concerns over both the page content and title; neither are for here. Content issues should be resolved by normal editorial means. The suggestion to move the target to 'Circassian Genocide' should be resolved at WP:RM and does not require a page deletion through RFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is exactly why bureaucracy was created to confuse people in the process and muddle up any attempt at reaching any kind of reform by getting people lost in the paper work, at least wikipedia is saving trees,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pataraz (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided that this would be appropriate for such a sensitive issue? Most Circassians at that time were not Muslim, by the way, and till today a great number of them follow beliefs other than Islam. We have the Ottoman Empire to thank for this. Bearing in mind that it is easily refutable, I don't see why Wikipedia is kowtowing to a select number of groups (or individuals, hint hint?) and allowing this topic to be degraded in this fashion. It's quite easy to understand this: the Circassian genocide occured for a number of reasons, but RELIGION was not one of those. Circassians were never hardcore about faith and even till today this is a proven fact. Next, the reasons definitely had to do with their refusal to kneel to the Russian czarist regime or the Ottoman Empire (which brazenly had forts in the Caucasus even though they had no jurisdiction to do so at the time), their geographic/geopolitical location, the natural resources that are found in the land, their proximity to the Middle East, southeastern Europe, Central Asia, etc. and so on. When a simple Internet search could easily surge up results that could explain all this without a doubt, how is it that Wikipedia is allowing this to occur? As a Circassian, I am very highly offended by this action and I demand that you do not allow this to happen. While I understand (but of course, do not respect or agree with) your refusal to allow the Abkhazian people to explain their country and their history in their own words on this site, this one really takes the cake. Please prove us all wrong in regards to your objectivity and do the right thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circassiankama (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Simply, the word "muhajir" is not a suitable term to describe the 1.5 Million Circassians, half the population, were killed or died because of inhumane conditions and the remaining half being exiled from their North Western Caucasus homeland - Circassia. The entry Muhajir (Caucasus) presents unjust and misleading facts to readers who search for more information of the Circassian genocide so simply re-naming the entry "Circassian genocide" will not solve this issue. By Wikipedia imposing the redirection it is rejecting the claims in the original article and raising the Muhajir (Caucasus) with its false and misleading claims on a higher pedestal. So please, what exactly was the reason for the redirect when the term muhajir infers to emigration and the Circassian genocide is connected to the forced exile of 90% of Circassians from their country Circassia? Do not allow the redirect, keep both articles, and let readers make their own judgments after they evaluate the sources and the validity of the presented facts in each of the entries. DWojokh (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I do not understand one thing. You are saying that there is no redirect, and this article was in wikipedia before and all that. Then why on the earth when someone who types "Circassian genocide" on wikipedia's search bar ends up with Muhajir (Caucasus) if there is not redirect? We would rather prefer to end up with an "article is not found" sort of answer than ending up with such a misleading and ignorant article called Muhajir (Caucasus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigha (talk • contribs) 17:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now moot, as the article seems to be moving forward at Genocide and deportation of Circassians.

To clarify though, any statement "there is no redirect" should be taken to mean that the large main article was never renamed and redirected. There are redirects, but they were created as redirects. The main article has always (AFAIK, certainly for some years) been at Muhajir (Caucasus). The only exceptions has been a rename in the last day or two, and also the separate smaller article once at Circassian genocide (small g) that had to be deleted as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it to Deportation of Circassians#Genocide Question. I do not see the Muhajir/Deportation article moving to "Genocide" any time soon, as this is unfounded politicized POV. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:20, 24 October 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Afrophobia → Racism (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Linked article, Racism, does not discuss "Afrophobia" at all. Afrophobia itself is not a word, not a real phobia, and is apparently the term is only found on Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The term started in 2006 as vandalism - a joke about people being afraid of the afro hair style. Then it turned into a conspiracy to create a new word in place of "discrimination against black African people" See: Talk:Afrophobia.

The word itself received 70 Wikipedia hits last month. But this does not mean the word should be directed to racism; that is not the place to describe that "afrophobia" is not a real condition. Maybe there is some compromise here, having a blank page or redirecting to the wrong page is not the place. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The deleted history of the redirect includes several sources that use the term. I have no idea of its range of use (I simply created the redirect after an AfD), but the term does exist. I see no harm in its existence. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is certainly a legitimate term - see here. Though the target does not use this term it covers racism against Africans so it is useful to searchers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How about bringing back a 'racism against African-Americans' or somesuch page? Regardless of the term's use in novels and search engines, its still a made up word, and seems to give the wrong impression. It could imply that it is an actual mental illness, among other things. People don't say 'Semitiphobia' to describe racism against Jews. Its wordplay, might even be a weasel word. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - redirects have no implications, they are purely search aids - see WP:RNEUTRAL. All words have been 'made up' or created at some time in the past. They become legitimised, as this one has, through usage. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To reinforce Bridgeplayer's excellent point, although the word "Semitiphobe" is not in current usage (and, indeed, Iron may have "coined" it in this discussion), it would make an okay redirect to anti-Semitism. Good redirects often consist of misspelled or misunderstood words, sending a user from a fallacious or questionable term to an article concerning the correct or standard term. Xoloz (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]