The result of the discussion was no action. This is indisputably a PoV redirect, but that is not necessarily a reason for deletion as it tends to discourage the creation of PoV forks. With the retargeting of the redirect to 1948 Palestinian exodus during the debate, the specific offensiveness of referring to the whole conflict as a "holocaust" is averted, and many of the earlier comments in the discussion are rendered moot. This closure is made without prejudice to a new discussion being opened if the new target is still deemed a problem. That said, I think the level of use of this term, however offensive or misleading it may be, makes the existence of a redirect to somewhere relevant quite likely. ~ mazca ^talk 12:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian Holocaust → Israeli–Palestinian conflict (links to redirect)

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE criteria #3. The use of this term, as a comparison to The Holocaust, trivializes the intentional murder of 6 million Jews, and is anti-semitic in fact, if not in deed. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Politically motivated redirect, existance implies Wikipedia accepts the analagy. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly a POV redirect which should not remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:RFD, "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term." A google search turned up this, over 31,000 hits, including "Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust' | World news ..." from The Guardian, and "Online visit to 'Palestinian Holocaust museum' - Israel Culture ..." from ynet. Also, per WP:RFD: " 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." untwirl(talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That may be, but one of the reasons for deleting is if the redirect is percieved to be offensive, which it appears to be from the reaction here. I also question the usefulness of the redirect, in that individual conflicts like 1948 civil war and war of independence might be described as a Palestinian Holocaust, but not the full conflict. "Gaza massacre" redirects to "Gaza War" because that is a common term for the conflict, particuarly in Arab press, I don't think it is as clear cut here. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This does not sit will with me. POV crap per nom. -- Y not? 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- decidedly POV, offensive, poor analogy, and per YeshuaDavid, patently politically motivated. Stellarkid (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the only offensive thing here is the way some people instrumentalize the Shoah nowadays. 81.244.41.148 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly inescapably POV. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NPOV does not apply to redirects. In this case the redirect discourages POV forking. In addition, the phrase itself has been reported/used in various forums, not the least the United Nations. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, and in this case, the stated reason for deletion is that of personal offense, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an appropriate deletion justification. We have standalone articles with titles that many find offensive, such as midget, nigger, and fuck. B.Wind (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—not just POV, but an unnecessarily offensive redirect. Nobody would be looking for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict if they typed in "Palestinian Holocaust". In fact, statistics show that the amount of people looking for this term is negligible, compared to the main article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Coming here from the WP:Signpost, BTW.) The term is commonly enough used to justify a correct redirect. The usual reference is to the Nakba, which redirects to 1948 Palestinian exodus, so I've corrected the redirect accordingly. I think much of the offensiveness prompting the deletion nomination arose from the incorrect redirection, so I suggest this discussion should be closed, and if necessary a new one started based on the correct redirection, if it is argued that the term is so intrinsically offensive that it may not be used even in a redirect correctly reflecting usage. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect discourages the creation of a POV fork, which would be even worse. Non-NPOV names should be redirected to the more appropriate name; except in cases of clear offensive intent in the redirect, such as BLP-violating nicknames and the like. --Jayron32 03:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close discussion without action per Rd232, allowing nominator to relist with new target if desired, as many comments above are likely influenced by original target. -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 closed as moot: valid dab page has overwritten the redirect. (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Passchendaele → Passendale (links to redirect)

Redirect. Passchendaele is the English name of a Belgian town Passendale. The reason for possible contention is that Passchendaele is currently redirected to the Battle of Passchendaele, a World War I battle that took place in proximity of the town. The redirect previously directed searchers to the battle page instead of that of the town. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either target the battle or leave it as a dab page. In Canada, the battle is almost certainly the desired target, unless they want the film. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: there is also another use on Wikipedia for the Iron Maiden song Paschendale. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Disam page - clear justification for this to remain a disam page as it is currently, the redirects should not be restored. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was never a disam page, that was apparently done while discussion here was still taking place, so I have reverted it until discussion has come to a resolution.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: There are currently just under 100 links to Passchendaele. The links in the pages for the German divisions are meant to go to the battle, so I will fix that. The remainder are referring to the town (Ex. place of death of Victoria Cross winners). None were referring to the song and I corrected those that were referring to the film and sent them to Passchendaele (film). This being said, I would not be opposed to it becoming a disam page instead of a redirect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Should either redirect to the battle or be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguation is the safest option here and will make it easiest to avoid wrong links. — Kusma ^talk 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. An unlikely redirect, but there's no consensus that it's harmful and the status of very old redirects from our old naming systems is generally unclear. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nazi Germany/Racial Policy → Racial policy of Nazi Germany (links to redirect)

Delete Remnant of Wikipedia's earliest method of splitting articles, now a very obscure search target. No need for it to be retained. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per lack of reasons to delete. It is an old redirect, and has not caused any harm so far. A possible use might be that it is linked to from old versions of articles, and those links would break if we delete it. We delete only harmful redirects, not redirects that look useless. — Kusma ^talk 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that it's hardly a harmful redirect, and it's not going to disrupt readers on Wikipedia. But I have checked that no articles link there, and it seems a pretty obscure scenario that someone trawling the early history of an article like Nazi Germany would find this link and expect it to work, and I don't think we should keep a redirect for that sort of reason. Even if this redirect has escaped detection for a long time, almost every slash-based redirect from an old title has been removed, and I don't think we should preserve it just because we can. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we shouldn't delete it unless there is a demonstrated reason that we should. — Kusma ^talk 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually there is: the name of the redirect implies that it is a subpage of Nazi Germany, which it is not; thus it is a potentially confusing redirect. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed recommendation (with hesitation) to keep as this was created in 2003, well before Wikipedia's creation of subpages and during the time in which Wikipedia was using CamelCase. Because the redirect page itself explains the history, I reluctantly recommend its keeping for historical reasons. Nonetheless, because the rules have changed since 2003, this is now a confusing redirect. B.Wind (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -confusing redirect per B. Wind. Stellarkid (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wp:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting says (empsises mine) "avoid deleting such redirects if [...] You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them."--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Third Eye Blind. Killiondude (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jason Slater → Snake River Conspiracy (links to redirect)

Redirect was apparently created based upon a mention of this individual in a section that has since been removed as trivia.[1] Current article has no mention of this individual and thus no obvious connection to justify this redirect. --Allen3 ^talk 12:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question? Is he a former member of the band?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jason Slater, who typically keeps fans apprised of the ongoings of the band via myspace and the SRC forums, has remained quiet on the situation as well as the status of the material that had been recorded during the brief reconciliation."
  • "Jason Slater was previously a founding member of Third Eye Blind, a band he left because he felt they were "...the modern equivalent of the Partridge Family."

Those are two sentences from the article at one point, it doesnt look as though Jason has ever been a member of the band. So really this redirect should be deleted or perhaps even redirect to Third Eye Blind where atleast Jason is currently mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if not Redirect to Third Eye Blind. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Third Eye Blind, where he's mentioned in an infobox as a former member, and then delink it to remove a circular link.B.Wind (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 00:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First Article → Wikipedia:UuU (links to redirect)

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Suggest delete. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading. This is not even the first article in Wikipedia, but just the oldest surviving edit. "First Article" could obviously mean dozens of other things, like first articles of a constitution or other document, or the first article in any other encyclopedia. — Kusma ^talk 10:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 00:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hip hop musci → Hip hop (disambiguation) (links to redirect)

Seems like an unlikely typo. Doesn't link to anything and receives very low traffic. Unfortunately, this redirect was created over two years ago and does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. — Σxplicit 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jeremy (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the search tool will identify this typo, as demonstrated by this search for "Swing musci". -- Thinking of England (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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