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. Redirects are not supposed to be neutral. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Franklin coverup hoax → Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (links to redirect • history • stats) 
• Franklin Coverup Hoax → Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (links to redirect • history • stats)

Moving from AFD filed by Jeremystalked. Rationale was "The title is not NPOV. Even though it is merely a REDIRECT to the actual article, there is a problem: when you type 'franklin coverup' in the Wikipedia search box, the suggested phrase 'Franklin coverup hoax' appears, making it seem as though Wikipedia's position on the topic is that it's conclusively a hoax." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the nomination is based on a misunderstanding of our guidelines. NPOV does not apply to redirects; this is explained at WP:RNEUTRAL. A redirect is not an article that takes a position; it is simply a navigation aid. The only question is whether the redirect takes the reader to a relevant page or whether it is misleading. In this case, as the article says, "A 1990 grand jury report concluded the allegations amounted to a "carefully crafted hoax"", so it seems to me that this is a reasonable search term. The utility is underscored by an average of 100 hits per month. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article goes on to say, "The 1990 grand jury report came less than two weeks after private detective Gary Caradori was killed when the small plane he was piloting broke up in flight over Illinois. Caradori was hired as lead investigator by the special Nebraska state legislative committee originally assigned to look into the child abuse allegations." The suspiciously timed death is what led to accusations of a cover-up, as the article says. The cover-up is not a verifiable hoax, only the abuse scandal is allegedly a hoax, even though (as the article says) the perpetrators of the hoax were never identified. The redirect is misleading. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 03:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not misleading because a redirect does not pretend to be a technically accurate description of a page nor of a set of circumstances. It is only a means by which people can find articles. This would only be misleading if the reader was taken to an irrelevant page. Someone searching on this term, and plenty do, is patently looking for the target. The fact that the terms of the redirect, or the searcher's understanding of the situation, is inaccurate is not relevant - the article sets the record straight. Bridgeplayer (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm curious about those stats and how they are generated. How do we know it's not one person with a bot, gaming Wikipedia's deletion policy? How do we know these people weren't trying to find the correct term ("Franklin Coverup") but had to settle for this one?Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - potentially confusing perhaps, but also possibly useful if it helps someone find this page. That's what's more important here. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is it okay if I create a redirect, evolution myth, redirecting to evolution? It's potentially confusing, but also possibly useful if it helps someone find the page. That's what's really important. And I can even arrange for evolution myth to have a few dozen hits per month. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No creating redirects (or anything else) just to make a point. Sideways713 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So basically, the person who created the original link that I want deleted was allowed to WP:POINT, but nobody else is allowed to do something like this, unless their WP:POINT happens to agree with the prejudices of psychopaths who abuse Wikipedia to push their WP:WORLDVIEW. Am I correct about this? Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:POINT and WP:NPOV are completely separate. Even blatantly point-of-view articles, redirects etc. need not necessarily be, and indeed almost always aren't, violations of WP:POINT. The two just happen to share the word "point" - that's about all they have in common. Sideways713 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are missing my point. I assert the creation of this redirect that I'm debating is there to "make a point" about the franklin coverup. Meanwhile, on this very page, another user says he has no problem with an evolution myth redirect, "provided it is targeted at objections to evolution". So clearly, some redirects are more okay than others.
          • You can't have it both ways. If it's not okay to create redirects appending "myth" or "hoax" to articles whose content one party disagrees with ("religion hoax", "obama fraud", "liberal lies"...), why is it okay to do it in other instances? There is nothing notable about the term "franklin coverup hoax", and the only reason people are hitting that redirect on Wikipedia at all is because of idiosyncrasies in the Wikipedia search interface.
          • Make up your mind. Is it okay to append "myth", "hoax", "lies", "deception", etc., to article titles for the purpose of creating a redirect which makes a point about an article, or not? If it's not, this redirect should be deleted. If it is, then you've just given everyone the go-ahead to create blatantly POV redirects to game the Wikipedia search interface and psychologically anchor that POV to the article. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 13:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Creating "myth", "hoax" etc. redirects is generally okay as long as said notion is reasonably covered in the article and the search term itself is plausible and not a neologism, though I wouldn't advise suddenly creating 100s of redirects of that type. Franklin coverup hoax isn't perfect, but the consensus here is that it's reasonable. It doesn't imply that Wikipedia in general or anybody associated with Wikipedia thinks the coverup is a hoax (though many here certainly do), just that they find it a reasonable search term. Note that Franklin coverup, the redirect you created, hasn't drawn any criticism yet. It's another okay redirect - though since a differently capitalized Franklin Coverup already existed, it's pretty useless in the search box. Sideways713 (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect against recreation - bias and an attempt at psychological framing by gaming Wikipedia's search suggestions feature. The proper redirect, franklin coverup, already exists. "Franklin Coverup" is far more notable than "Franklin Coverup Hoax"; a significant chunk of the Google hits for "Franklin Coverup Hoax" point to outraged discussions of the misleading nature of this redirect on Wikipedia. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 15:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Redirects are value-free navigation aids, and that's all. See WP:RNEUTRAL. The other suggestions simply show a misunderstanding of the status of redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But if "redirects are value-free navigation aids, and that's all", why isn't it okay to create an evolution myth page? The phrase "evolution myth" is far more notable than "franklin coverup hoax" - and by the way, a fraction of the search results for that latter phrase link to this redirect, and complaints about it. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 19:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Provided it is targeted at Objections to evolution, I see no problem with an Evolution myth redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great- could you convince User:The_Anome, who appears to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, not to delete it when I create it? Thanks a bunch. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 20:15, 11 August 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 speedy delete under G6. — ξ^xplicit 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Fausto Coppi.jpg → File:Fausto Coppi portret.jpg (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The redirect should be deleted, because the name clashes with an different image on commons. All articles already use "File:Fausto Coppi portret.jpg", and if the redirect is removed, the image from commons can be used on en. EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as CSD G6 and tagged as such. Housekeeping move that does not require discussion here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]