Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 24

July 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2008

Pig Empire → American Empire
The result of the debate was retarget per consensus. PeterSymonds (talk)  21:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC) While Abbie Hoffman may have used this obscure phrase, that fact alone does not make it a widely-enough used phrase to exist as a redirect on the project, per #3 and #7 in the criteria for deletion of a redirect. Additionally, it was created by a now-indeffed editor, who was indef-ed for just this type of thing. His userpage is littered with anti-establishment userboxes, and the initial creation of the redirect was itself apparently little more than a pointy exercise. The fact that Abbie Hoffman once called America a "Pig Empire" does not constitute a legitimate reason for making that a redirect, especially (but not only) becuase that phrase wasn't even considered notable enough to make it into any part of this project. S. Dean Jameson 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirector here. For full context regarding the history of this redirect, it might benefit editors to see here and here. Regarding the deletion criteria cited in the nomination; I don't think #3 is really a concern, and with regard to #7, the redirect is quite obviously neither a misnomer or an implausible typo. As the linked example illustrates, #3 is primarily to protect living people from gratuitous disparagement. My rationale in proposing a previous redirect to United States for deletion was that it was a malicious neogolistic redirect, but after the creator explained that far from a neologism, the term was widely used by influential countercultural figure and critic of United States foreign policy Abbie Hoffman. After some research, I discovered the term reached wider use in reliable third party sources (cf. , , , among others). A cursory examination of traffic stats indicates that the redirect is a plausible search term, useful to dozens of readers (contra #7). Redirects are cheap, and this one is well-founded. Skomorokh  17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflicted response to refactored nomination: the merits of a redirect are completely independent of the merits of its contributor; this redirect ought not be tarred by association with User:Lenerd. It is completely circular to cite 'not being considered notable enough to make it into the project' as a relevant reason to delete new content; consider the nonsensical rationale of "Sorry, the article you created has been deemed unsuitable for inclusion and deleted as non-notable, as if it had been notable, it would already have been included" on new pages. Skomorokh  17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article. It's a redirect, using a term that is mentioned in neither Abbie Hoffman nor American Empire. If anything, the term should be redirected to the Hoffman article, and a sourced mention made of it in that article. It's clearly not a widely-used term of reference for America or the "American Empire", so would that (redirecting to the person who coined the phrase) be an acceptable alternative? S. Dean Jameson 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a false dilemma, as it is not a widely used term to refer to Hoffmann either. The relevant question is: what is someone who searches for "Pig Empire" looking for? Examining the third party references, none of them fail to mention Hoffmann, so few of the searchers wouldn't know the association. Therefore, if they were looking for info on Hoffmann, they would search for "Abbie Hoffman". Much more likely is that they are looking for info on the "empire" in question. If the choices were between United States and Abbie Hoffmann, I would probably agree with you that the latter would be more appropriate, but we do have an article on the "empire": American Empire. (Please continue discussion here rather than on my talkpage, thanks). Skomorokh  18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator's proposal S. Dean Jameson proposes to create a section in the Abbie Hoffman article on "Pig Empire" and switch the redirect there. If such a section were appropriate for the article, and linked to American Empire, I would support this. I'm not convinced the term deserves that much weight, but I'm prepared to co-operate with an effort at working this through. Skomorokh  18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working up a short, sourced article on the term off-line. This could either be merged somehow into the Hoffman article, or stand alone as a stub. I think this might solve the problem, as my main concern is that the current redirect seems to say "Pig Empire = American Empire, objectively", when it's a much more fluid issue of how Hoffman and his contemporaries viewed America, combined with what the phrase means today, and how widely-used it might or might not be today. I'll place the sourced text at Pig Empire, and then defer to you on whether or not to merge it into the Hoffman article, or simply leave it as a stub. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As someone who generally leans toward inclusion, I would say having examined the sources that the phrase/concept itself would fail WP:N. I recommend you sandbox a paragraph in your userspace and we will see how it might fit into the Abbie Hoffmann or perhaps Steal This Book articles. I don't think negative redirects are necessarily concerning; see The Governator, Butcher of Baghdad as negative nickname redirects for example. Skomorokh  18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅I've placed a short section in the Hoffman Steal This Book article, and will be retargeting Pig Empire to that shortly. S. Dean Jameson
 * Looks good, great work. Skomorokh  20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to the Hoffman article or delete. This phrase has no significant usage that connects with the topic of the current target article.  It was a fairly trivial pejorative targetting US society as a whole, not a substantive commentary.  Given the triviality of its use, I'm leaning more toward delete unless someone can come up with more compelling evidence that this phrase was significant.  Rossami (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Rossami on this one and suggest delete. It's an adolescent throwaway pejorative. Eusebeus (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The redirect has been WP:BOLDly retargeted to the satisfaction of editors of the page. No need to continue this discussion for process' sake. Skomorokh  20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget looks good to me. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have reverted the closure by both Skomorokh & S. Dean Jameson. It is inappropriate for an editor to close a debate they have participated in. This is especially true when there are contrary opinions given in the debate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely, totally, and utterly unhelpful. The one person who mentioned "delete", also said "retarget." What you're doing is wildly inappropriate, and process-wonky. I will be reverting (per consensus here) shortly. I ask you to bow to consensus, and not process wonkery. S. Dean Jameson 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the debate again. Eusebeus's opinion is for a straight delete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good lord, this is surreal. He said "agree with Rossami" who suggested delete or retarget. And one editor (even if he was an overt delete) doesn't derail an overwhelming consensus. You really need to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is surreal. But it is your actions that are surreal. He doesn't say re-target & specifically says delete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's on you. Look at my contributions to the discussion before you stomped in. I and the other editos had worked out an amicable solution. Then you blew in like a hurricane, undoing our work, and for what, exactly? S. Dean Jameson 01:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of this. Had you just let the discussion continue, there would not be an issue. Instead, you are trying to silince an editor's opinion and that is just not right. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And still you persist in your drama. He said "agree with Rossami" who also suggested "retarget." There's no debate that you raised the drama quotient, when everything had died down, and been resolved. S. Dean Jameson 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please stop trying to close this discussion early. If the problem is truly solved, let it sit here for the 5 days or so that the process normally runs and confirm it.  If not, well, that will give others the opportunity to find the discussion and agree or disagree with what's already been said.  Closing the debate early is creating the drama, not the other way around.  Rossami (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is solved. But, by all means, let the process run its course anyway. S. Dean Jameson 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see both sides regarding the closing issue. I do have to agree that if you have cast your !vote then you should not close it.  On the other hand, it appears to me that the WP:BOLD actions have been correct and that the new redirect is appropriate.  I would say that if there is two more  editors that agrees with the new redirect, it can be closed as a WP:SNOW --Pmedema (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the new redirect.  Enigma  message 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * 'Retarget to Steal this Book. Fits nicer there, not as POV.  If one author uses the term to describe something, that "new term" shouldn't go to the term it is referring to, but to either the person or the work where it appears, with an explanation (link) to what it is referring to (American Empire).  This appears to have been well done.  I find it to be a valid redirect, per Skomorokh's additional references of the terms use.   Keeper    76  15:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Retarget per S. Jameson's suggestion.  Enigma  message 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Emcore → Solar cell
The result of the debate was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 15:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPAM, company to product, we are not yellow pages Mion (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep I'm not seeing the issue here. The article seems to note that Emcore is a major solar cell manufacture, and this seems to be the only article with any information about them. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless Emcore is to have it's own article, the current redirect is fine. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Martifer Renewables Electricity → Martifer
The result of the debate was Keep.(non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 04:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Mion (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep This does not appear to be spam at all, and "Martifer Renewables Electricity" has a section in the target article (Martifer). -- Ned Scott 00:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AutoblogGreen → Weblogs, Inc.
The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Autoblog. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC) product to company, NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SPAM Mion (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - per nom.-- S R X  16:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There's nothing more than an EL in the target article, so I would be fine with deletion, but I don't understand the directory/spam argument here. I don't know how many of them are reliable sources, but a quick search with Google news shows autobloggreen.com being cited in several articles. Seems better than your average run-of-the-mill/dime-a-dozen blog. -- Ned Scott 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - AutoblogGreen is relate to Autoblog (autoblog.com and autobloggreen.com). Redirect to Autoblog. --Love Krittaya (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

土 → Earth (classical element)
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The redirect was previously discussed in Jan 2008. The decision at the time was "no consensus" but it stimulated a centralized discussion on the general topic of foreign redirects. Based on the consensus that was subsequently formed in that discussion, I would ask that the January decision be revisited. This redirect would appear to fall into the category of a "common word or concept" where a foreign-language redirect is discouraged. (In fact, it's specifically called out as an example, but if the consensus here does not ratify that decision, we'll have to change the example.) Thank you. Rossami (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete as per result of central discussion. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete otherwise, someone create a bot to troll are title names for matches in wiktionary and find all the non-English links found there and create redirects.... no thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hachiroku → Toyota AE86
The result of the debate was Kept. The term is used repeatedly in the target article so this seems a valid search phrase. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Redirect makes no sence. Hachiroku is not even mentioned in the article, is not a nick name or anything. I see absolutly no reason for this redirect. Pmedema (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, apparently Hachiroku is Japanese for "86", and used in Japan to refer to the Toyota AE86. -- Ned Scott 08:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please cite/reference that because in a simple Google search I find that there are more references to Drifting (motorsport) then to this Toyota vehicle...--Pmedema (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The current article does mention "Hachiroku" (or Hachi-Roku) at the end of the lead paragraph, and has for a while. This seems like a good redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an odd coincidence - two foreign-language redirects nominated back-to-back... In keeping with the centralized discussion decision on redirects from foreign languages, this would appear to fall into category of "direct translation where the English title is the native/original form".  That would suggest that deletion is in order unless there is affirmative evidence that the "foreign title is common use".  My own google search returned 178k hits but a review of the first few pages of results seems to show that less than a quarter are relevant.  (Unfortunately, I had to exclude a number of sites where the context was not clear to me.  A better analysis by someone who speaks the language would be much appreciated.)  Rossami (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Japanese, but it's a common term among some English speaking anime fans, due to Initial D. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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