Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 19

March 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2008

Authoritarian socialist, Authoritarian socialism → Marxism
The result of the debate was Deleted. The redirects are not synonymous with the current target. The provided Google search shows that it's not used synonymously with socialism either, but as a subset. Also, socialist redirects to socialism so redirecting one and deleting the other would be inconsistent. A stub seems reasonable, but that's up to someone to write one. As such, deleting so that it shows up as a red link to encourage creation is the best option. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC) The fact that these redirects even exist suggests an anti-Marxist bias on the part of the original contributor. Generally, the term "authoritarian socialist" is an obscure pejorative term applied to Marxists by anarchists, and it does not necessarily reflect all philosophies, movements, tendencies and traditions represented within the broad spectrum of Marxism. Instead of a redirect, I propose that someone write an entry on "authoritarian socialism," within which they may, of course, include links to Marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.70.27 (talk • contribs) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Neither term is used in the target article; "authoritarian" is used only once. Of course, it could just as easily have been changed from a redirect by writing (at least) a referenced stub article for one of these and redirect the other to it. Then this process could be closed in no time. B.Wind (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Make stub and redirect authoritarian socialist to authoritarian socialism. This appears to be the "other half" to libertarian socialism. Why the latter is so complete and the former hasn't been written is beyond me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget Authoritarian socialism → Socialism (see Google search results) and delete Authoritarian socialist (it can be recreated if a stub article on authoritarian socialism is started). Black Falcon (Talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Navbox → Navigational templates
The result of the debate was delete. Navbox is actually a wanted article, so perhaps having it as a redlink will encourage someone to create an article. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect. Chris DHDR 17:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. This should be a speedy, but cross-namespace redirects are not listed under WP:CSD. I urge considering the possibility of adding it to the policy. B.Wind (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be WP:Navbox - no need for bare redirects like this, people will guess to type WP: in front. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

String Hypothesis → String Theory
The result of the debate was keep.  Singu larity  18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Creator pushing POV that string theory is not science.PhysPhD (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "String hypothesis" is a neologism. B.Wind (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the problem. While I would object to changing the title of the main article to "string hypothesis"(since that isn't the name that is used for this subfield of physics), I don't see what's wrong with having another page so entitled which simply redirects to the real article. The user who started the "string hypothesis" page may actually be POV pushing but it seems to me that they have failed and the existence of this redirect doesn't actually push that POV. What is the harm if someone types "string hypothesis" into the search bar and get redirected to the real article? Maybe I'm just missing the point though, so I won't vote yet in case someone can give me a good reason for it's deletion. Joshua Davis (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if intention matters, but the editor had also added a pseudo-science tag to the string theory page. Clearly intended as POV.PhysPhD (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Redirects for discussion, this is not a reason to delete a redirect. "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion."  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While that is true, it doesn't address the issue that the term is a neologism... and Wikipedia guidelines preclude neologisms. If the term itself is unsuitable as the name of a Wikipedia article under WP:NEO, then there shouldn't be a redirect under that name, either. B.Wind (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Redirects for discussion guideline states, "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Neutral point of view)." Doesn't this mean that a redirect is not an article, and that article naming guidelines do not apply to redirect naming, particularly with regard to this forum?  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I stated below, I have come across the phrase before so I do not think of it as a neologism. I probably couldn't provide a reference so maybe that's not notable enough for others. Joshua Davis (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between notability and being a neologism (and, OBTW, I'm not even looking at POV here as it is irrelevant to my point). If it is not a neologism, then it should be fairly easily sourced either online or offline. If the term predates the Internet, a definition could be found, theoretically, in a book. As it is, the redirect title violates WP:NEO until/unless it can be demonstated that they are not neologisms. B.Wind (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms and Pharos there indicated that WP:NEO doesn't necessarily need to regulate redirects, as long as the term is used by at least "a small subculture." So I think that means NEO alone isn't reason enough to delete this one, or I guess I should say these two.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 07:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per the policy mentioned by Dansiman. I happen to like this policy since I think it actually helps defeat POV pushing by sending users who enter the phrase in the search window to the neutral article. The only hitch is that it may not be a notable enough term; I have heard it before, albeit rarely, so that's notable enough for me. Joshua Davis (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see the POV concern with the title, but it seems alright to have a redirect if the title is used by opponents of the theory. As some have said above, the POV concern would be in the name of the article itself, not the redirect. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per Joshua Davis. Its harmless for other reasons, too; sometimes naive users are confused about the name of something, so a redirect from the wrong name to the right name provides utility. linas (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

String hypothesis → String Theory
The result of the debate was keep.  Singu larity  18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Ditto above.PhysPhD (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, per above.  D a n si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. See above. Joshua Davis (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Capitalized or not, the redirect title is still a neologism. B.Wind (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per my comments above. linas (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)