Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political correctness gone mad


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. At RfD now. (non-admin closure)  J947  † edits 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Political correctness gone mad

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I think this old redirect should be eliminated via WP:RNEUTRAL. It's not a catchphrase, too

To admin: the discussion has been moved to Redirects_for_discussion and should probably be closed here. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed; just an average overheated cable news channel heated segment name.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not an endorsement of the concept but this seems to be exactly what WP:RNEUTRAL is for: established enough to be the title of at least one (fairly high-profile), book, at least one paper, at least one podcast, and a standard go-to line in countless news articles. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We have no article of that title here for the book or the academic paper, and there are multiple non-GNG podcasts with this name. Pageviews have never gone above 27 in this redirect's history. There's no 'there' there to be found. Unless someone crafts a well-sourced article for the book in the next seven days, I'm not finding any indication we should keep this, and it would take less that ten minutes to redirect the mentions to the actual article of political correctness.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow -- we're not arguing whether there should be an article on the book (which is where GNG would apply), but the fact that "the subject matter of articles" -- in this case, political correctness -- "may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms," which seems to clearly be the case. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: I just realized this is the wrong venue ; this should be up at WP:RFD instead as a redirect. As I've voted already NAC'ing this would be inappropriate so someone else should close this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right! I relisted it in there. Thanks for your explanation. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect and keep it there. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.