Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 14

September 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2011

Repeal Profit‐Rich Big Oil Companies, Invest in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * → Renewable energy in the United States (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Political slogan, not helpful or informative as a redirect 76.244.149.253 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - no hits above the background noise; no meaningful link between the redirect subject and the article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. HairyWombat 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No hits. And why would there their be? When your position is too WP:POV for the article, the answer is not to put into the title of another article redirecting to the article in question. — m a k o ๛  15:14, 16 September 2011 (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.

Self-abnegation



 * 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 Kept as term is now mentioned in target. If there is any disagreement as to whether the term should be mentioned in the target, that should be discussed at the target as it's not in the scope of RFD. If such discussion occurs and changes the status quo, then this can be revisited via a new nomination. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion: Self-abnegation and Self-denial are not the same. Self-denial page is a disambig page. Don't know how this mess came about, but deletion seems the least worst solution. None have articles pointing to them. Self-abnegation recently had four, but I resolved/removed them. HairyWombat 05:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * → Self-denial (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Self-denial (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Self-denial (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Self-denial (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Soft redirect all to Wiktionary. Collectively, there is significant use as a search term, so people come here to find out about these words. Therefore, unless other editors feel that an article can be written on the concept,soft redirects looks helpful to readers and I see no reason not to assist them in finding the meaning. Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Soft redirect all to Wiktionary. Excellent suggestion by Bridgeplayer. Didn't think of Wikionary. HairyWombat 16:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Altruism. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Comment - it's a thought. However, though it is a sub-set of altruism, 'Self-abnegation' has a very specific meaning. At present there is no mention of 'Self-abnegation' in the 'altruism' page so a redirect would simply be confusing to the reader - someone searching on 'Self-abnegation' wants something about that term, if they wanted the general topic of altruism then they would search on altruism. If we are to retarget to 'altruism' then we need to explain the term in that article, otherwise the soft redirect is more helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I have converted Self-denial to a stub rather than a disambiguation page because the incoming links indicate that altruistic abstinence should be the primary target for this term. Asceticism is simply a related topic, so it is linked in the body of the article, and the remaining entry is linked via the hatnote. I have sourced the assertion that self-denial and self-abnegation are synonyms in the lede. Because there is now an article about this topic and self-abnegation is a valid name for this topic, maintaining internal rather than creating external links is most preferable. There is a plethora of sources that can be used to extend this new article; it has been studied extensively as separate from general altruism, ascetisism, and abstinence. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Self-abnegation" and "self-denial" are still not the same. To see the difference, please see the entries in Wiktionary (here and here). Also, neither of these words deserves an enclyclopedia entry because ... well, because they are just words. Wikionary is the correct place for them, and there is nothing wrong in linking from Wikipedia to over there. HairyWombat 04:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by your assessment of the Wiktionary entries for these two words. As far as I can tell, the Wiktionary entries demonstrate that there is no encyclopedic difference between the terms in question. Self-denial is defined as "taking action that sacrifices one's own benefit for the good of others" and self-abnegation is defined as "the denial or invalidation of ones own needs, interests, etc. in the sake of another's". There is no encyclopedic difference between these two concepts. I am also confused by the assertion that self-denial and self-abnegation are just words, as though they do not refer to an encyclopedic concept. Self-denial has been given thorough examination by various religious groups and philosophers, some arguing in support of it as a virtue while others are opposed; there is plenty of source material that can be used to develop an encyclopedia article about this subject. Neelix (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOT. HairyWombat 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article in no way violates WP:NOT. There is plenty that has been written about self-denial that goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. Neelix (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Relisting in order to gain consensus as the situation has changed significantly since nomination. An article now exists at the destination, rather than a disambig page, making some of the arguments to redirect to wiktionary redundant. At the end of the day though, these redirects fate depends on a debate over whether the terms are usable interchangeably, or different topics, which I fear is outside the scope of RfD as it would affect the content of the target article. Still, relisting rather than closing as no consensus for now. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Without getting into any content issues, the new self-denial article includes self-abnegation as a synonym (in common usage at least). Given the new situation, keeping seems like the correct course of action. — m a k o ๛  15:17, 16 September 2011 (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.

Liquid nails



 * 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 retarget. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * → Artificial nails (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Retarget. Liquid Nails is the brand name of a popular line of construction and DIY adhesive. They have a number of different types of adhesive in the brand lineup, so redirecting to any particular type wouldn't be appropriate. The current redirect target strikes me as a bit odd, since I've never heard artificial (finger)nails being referred to as "liquid". The only other option I've come up with for a new target is AkzoNobel, the conglomerate that owns the Liquid Nails brand, but there's no mention of the product in the AkzoNobel article. If none of those would work, then maybe we should just Delete this redirect. Powers T 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Adhesive. Good catch by nominator! This is a former article that was curiously redirected. Liquid nails is a construction adhesive and one of those terms that is a proprietary name but is now sometimes applied to the generic. I don't think that a full article can be supported. However, though there is nothing at the retarget at present, I have found a couple of sources and I will add content over the next 24 hours. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Adhesive - As per Bridgeplayer and the nominator. I wouldn't oppose deletion to encourage red links and the creation of an article in the future. That said, since those links don't seem to exist in large numbers yet, I'd have a slight preference for retargetting. — m a k o ๛  15:20, 16 September 2011 (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.