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. It's nice to have a much easier close this time around. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaza Holocaust → Gaza War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Well. Here we go again. This is the 5th RfD for this redirect, which has to be approaching a record. As you can see from the adjacent list of past RfDs, it has been stable at this target since its last RfD in 2016. I started that RfD, although I did not !vote in it. It was, as closing admin Tavix noted, a complicated discussion, split between four outcomes, and he closed in favor of the lowest common denominator. I think that that was the right call, but it's also worth noting that only two !voters explicitly supported that outcome.

A few days, ago The Blade of the Northern Lights closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5 § Gaza genocide as delete (previous target: Gaza War (2008–2009)). I'd !voted to retarget to Gaza War, but I don't disagree with The Blade's close. In light of that close, though, I am procedurally renominating Gaza Holocaust, for consideration of the following question: Does the logic for deleting Gaza genocide also apply here? If not, what distinguishes the two terms? I currently am undecided.

While I normally wouldn't do this, given how much debate there's been regarding these redirects, I'm pinging all of the !voters from the Gaza genocide RfD and all still-active !voters from the 4th Gaza Holocaust RfD, so that we can hopefully get a robust consensus here and avoid a Round 6: GreenC, Jay, Compassionate727, Rosguill, BDD, Gonnym, Chris troutman, Anachronist, Thryduulf, Patar knight. (P.S., like half of y'all are admins, so could one of you please tag the redirect with ((subst:rfd)), using the days=1 parameter if it's more than 18 minutes from now? I can't, as it's fully protected. Thanks.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tagged the redirect for you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as is, retarget if needed (but the current target is fine), and we shouldn't be deleting perfectly valid search terms. I am not sure why I was pinged; my only involvement was back when my username was "Amatulic" and I closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 17#Gaza Holocaust, which was a no-brainer because it was nearly unanimous "keep". Why are we discussing this? Deleting a redirect because it offends someone? WP:NOTCENSORED, you know. There isn't any requirement (that I know of) for redirects to use neutral wording. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You commented in the 2016 RfD under your previous username, which is why I pinged you. As to why we're discussing this: We have two potentially contradictory RfD outcomes (Gaza Holocaust in 2016, Gaza genocide in 2021), and I think it's worthwhile to reconcile those, either by also deleting Gaza Holocaust or by articulating why the two cases should be treated differently. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. Yes, I see I commented in the 2016 one. My reasoning there is unchanged, although the frequency of page hits has reduced. No harm is done by having these redirects, even if the outcome of various RFDs are inconsistent. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The term is not mentioned on any of the Gaza War pages, and the page itself averages about 1 view per week. Are there reliable sources suggesting that this is a widely used phrase? Mlb96 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Regardless of whether or not the phrase is widely used, surely there must be a better target than Gaza War. What exactly does that target imply? That all four conflicts added together constitute a single "Gaza Holocaust," or that each one individually is a "Gaza Holocaust" that occurred four times? The latter is absurd, since the 2012 and 2021 conflicts obviously did not have enough deaths to qualify as Holocausts, but the former is also absurd, since the word "Holocaust" implies systematic killings rather than a series of discrete events over the course of nearly 15 years. Mlb96 (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, of course, is assuming that none of the individual conflicts are commonly referred to with this term. If one of them is clearly referred to with this term more than the others, then that should be the target. Mlb96 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having mulled it over more, I think the best course of action is to delete on the basis of there not being an appropriate target. Mlb96 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most results when I search "Gaza Holocaust" on Google are about Holocaust survivors commenting on Israel's policies in Gaza. However, I did find a book chapter titled "Gaza's Holocaust" on Springer. (I think it's the same one I mentioned in the Gaza genocide discussion.) However, he's just using "holocaust" as a common noun to replace "genocide," probably because the implicit reminder of the Jews' treatment by the Nazis is politically useful. More significantly, I found a webpage that linked to this article: apparently, during a UN General Assembly meeting in 2019, Erdogan compared the Holocaust to Israel's policies in Gaza. However, he didn't use the phrase "Gaza Holocaust": I can't find anything that does, apart from that book I already mentioned. Of course, our redirect predates Erdogan's comment, so that's clearly not the source. Anyway, unless someone can find something more tangible, I will provisionally vote delete per BDD's rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Gaza genocide. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or weak delete, as an editor whose participation on this topic is limited to having voted keep for the Gaza genocide discussion, I think that both would ideally point to Gaza war as redirects from incorrect, non-neutral names. However, I don't want to stonewall on the basis of a prior discussion that I was in the minority on, so I'm fine with deletion for consistency. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the most recent outcome for "Gaza genocide". I know it can be inherently difficult to disentangle these questions from the underlying political ideas, but even taking the latter entirely out of consideration, for these redirects to be responsible and helpful on our part, there needs to be some discussion of them. As of a few weeks ago during the last discussion, I couldn't find any of them. If we ever have an equivalent article to Israel and the apartheid analogy that discusses the idea of genocide, by all means, we can redirect terms like this there. As such, they're flipping WP:RNEUTRAL on its head by being inflammatory but not helpful. (Thank you for the ping, Tamzin.) --BDD (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Repeating what I said in 2016: "There was no Gaza Holocaust so we have no article about it and I'd prefer to salt the title so we end the needless editing on the subject." Chris Troutman (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is an inflammatory redirect that is not mentioned or linked anywhere. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not neutral language and I can find no serious scholarly article that refers to the/any Gaza War directly with this term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Having sat out the previous time I nominated this, this time I do think I've been persuaded by one side. There may well be an article to be written on Comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany or something along those lines, and if that article is created, then this could be a plausible redirect to it. But without any mention of the term, or even the general rhetoric, this puts a very charged political phrase in the encyclopedia's voice. Part of my hesitance to !vote last time around was because it had been only two years since the 2014 war, which I had lived in Israel during, and I would never want to be seen as trying to suppress objective coverage of anti-Zionism. But this isn't that. And I think I've established that I do not tolerate anti-Palestinian content either, so this time I'm comfortable saying that we should delete and salt. If someday the above redlink is turned blue, my condolences in advance to whoever takes it upon themself to request re-creation of this redirect at RFUP or AN. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tamzin: there is both Holocaust inversion and Criticism of the Israeli government § Comparisons with Nazi Germany. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good finds, there. Well, I think it could be reasonable to target to either of those if mentioned. I still think delete&salt is the right call for now, though. Similar to what I said above, if the term winds up being mentioned at one of those, someone can make the case for un-salting at RFUP or AN. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Last Great Fighter Squadron → 561st Weapons Squadron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Last Great Fighter Squadron → 561st Weapons Squadron should be deleted. Obviously, members of any unit consider theirs to be great, but this approaches vandalism. It could obviously cause confusion with members of other units making the same claim, and is offensive to them, or at least WP:POV. It is self promotion of the 561st Weapons Squadron and possible spam. The only page history is its creations and two updates of the target, one by a bot, and one by me today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineagegeek (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While this is not mentioned at the target (it was removed in this 2011 edit), it is mentioned at List of United States Air Force fighter squadrons#Squadrons 501 to 600 although without a reference. If it is a widely used nickname for this squadron then the redirect is fine and should be kept, if is in use for multiple squadrons then it should be disambiguated. Looking on Google, every hit for the exact phrase is related to the current target, which means it's a straight keep-delete choice. Looking at those hits, most of them are clearly user-generated content and/or not clearly independent of Wikipedia. [1] (last section on the page) appears independent but I'm unsure how reliable it is, [2] is independent and reliable but without being able to see the book I don't know if it's relevant. I'm saying "weak keep" because everything I'm seeing is pointing towards this being a verifiable nickname for this (and only this) squadron, but I'd prefer a clearly reliably sourced mention to be added to the article. I'll alert the relevant WikiProject as they are more likely to have access to relevant sources (it makes sense that a squadron disbanded in 1996 would have more information in offline than online sources). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Googling the term returns almost only Wikipedia mirrors, along with a small number of sources which state that this is the unit's 'self styled' name, so I don't think that this redirect is of much use. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nick-D's reasoning above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lineagegeek. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ✗plicit 03:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• National Press Trust → Nationalisation in Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, although it appears o be a notable historical organization. While briefly mentioned at Daily Mashriq and Associated Press of Pakistan, I think that deletion to allow for search results and encourage article creation is probably the way to go here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It also gets brief mentions in a few other places, e.g. Pakistan Times and Mass media in Pakistan it would be better with its own article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ✗plicit 03:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1989 (Taylor's Version) → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect title is not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, and the redirect does not meet the criteria at WP:CRYSTAL (i.e. Swift has not confirmed that this will be the title of the 1989 re-recording, and any reliable sources that have used this title are speculation). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 03:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to 1989 (Taylor Swift album), since there was a Fearless (Taylor's Version) there may be more re-releases or editions in that format. Tag R with possibilities since according to the Fearless (Taylor's Version) article there are plans to re-record six albums. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC) updated 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: You are literally describing what Wikipedia is not, a crystal ball. Per CRYSTAL: Wikipedia does not predict the future. Yes, one release was formatted that way, but who is to say that all the other releases will be the same? As well, retargeting does not solve the issue, as that page does not mention 1989 (Taylor's Version). D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D🐶ggy54321, that's a fair point, but by CRYSTAL we should only keep just the next album (Speak Now (Taylor's Version) as a redirect to Speak Now), since that's the next candidate for re-recording, assuming she is going to do this in chronological order. If the next album will have a different formatted name, then TENPOUNDHAMMER applies. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, this would be the third upcoming album and by CRYSTAL, we only redirect and draft the first upcoming album. I also agree that it should be mentioned at the target article if a redirect is created, as with movie sequels and untitled upcoming projects. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now (Taylor's Version) runs into the same issues, and, we don't know if she will do these chronologically. She did skip over her debut album. That's why I have refrained from creating any of them. But, I do agree that TENPOUNDHAMMER would apply if she chose to re-record 1989 under a different name. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Now that Red (Taylor's Version) has been announced as the next re-recording, this just furthers my point that this redirect should not exist. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 23:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a rule that you need a 🐶 in your signature to !vote here?^[Joke] If not: There's coverage in reliable sources of fan speculation that this is an upcoming title, which makes it a plausible search term to redirect to 1989 (Taylor Swift album). However, given that the speculation isn't mentioned at the target, an ((r without mention)) here could give readers the impression that Wikipedia endorses the idea that this is a real thing. Delete for now, with no prejudice against re-creation if a mention is added to the 1989 article. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, that was a funny joke!! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 02:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ✗plicit 10:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• E.D.I.T.H → Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe#E.D.I.T.H.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The name was created at this title and moved to the correct E.D.I.T.H. pretty soon after (missed last fullstop). This title isn't a valid link to use in articles, and for search results, anyone who writes "E.D.I.T.H", will see the correct version anyways. Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, misspelled redirection. —El Millo (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IronManCap (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a harmless and plausible typo that consistently gets page views. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as creator, although technically not a solo editor anymore after the retarget. I left it because they are cheap, but if we've come this far, let's clear it out. -2pou (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition to the retarget, in general admins will not speedy-delete a page that editors have expressed a good-faith desire to keep (excluding G10 and G12 scenarios). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible typo, many people forget to put the last period in acronyms. The fact that someone would see the correct version doesn't necessarily mean this one should be deleted, as someone could type this and press Enter without looking at the suggested results. Saving users a click is worth the extra few bytes of data. Mlb96 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it were any period but the last, I'd say to delete, but forgetting the last is, as Mlb96 says, a pretty common error. Furthermore, some Regexes auto-linking URLs will ignore a period at the end of a URL and instead interpret it as punctuation. This includes the system used by MediaWiki: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E.D.I.T.H.> is interpreted as linking to E.D.I.T.H, not E.D.I.T.H. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mlb96 and Tamzin —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, helpful per above. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 23:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. ✗plicit 10:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rapid classic 1 → Stapler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article; appears to be a specific brand of stapler that isn't mentioned in the target article. As the target article does not list individual brands of staplers, I don't think it should be mentioned. There's some old content, but I'm not sure that Look up an image of the legendary stapler itself, the Rapid Classic 1, with one of many popular search engines. Because i can't insert one. It won't let me. Maybe you should look the stapler up as well to find more info, because I haven't. I just read the box. and later Usage by the Fuhrer are rumoured, yet unsubstantiated. Goering reportedly told his chauffeur that he saw the Fuhrer staple his tie to a desk with an early Rapid Classic 1, along with a Purchase Order for Panzer Tanks late in 1944. are particularly useful. Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only place that it would make sense for this to point is an article on Rapid Tools, which we do not currently have. Delete for want of suitable target. Useful thing to know about Hitler, though.^[Joke] -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Were that article created today, it would promptly be G3'd. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.