Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 30

May 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2012

Progressive_Libertarianism



 * 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 to left-libertarianism. Ruslik_ Zero  16:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Redirect is to a conceptually incorrect page (see Talk:Libertarian_socialism). Topic probably doesn't warrant its own article, so recommending deletion (only 1 link in (from Libertarian_Christianity), which is an incidental one, and should definitely not be redirected to the target anyway). Any replacement article would probably be a stub, as the concept of "progressive libertarianism" is socially immature (in terms of media citations, etc.). Redirect creator's account has been deleted. Cowb0y (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak retarget to left-libertarianism. Progressivism and leftism in their modern senses are broadly similar, and I think Progressive Libertarianism (and progressive libertarianism) should probably point somewhere. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question didn't we discuss a similar redirect to this recently? Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2012 (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.

Corporate plutocracy



 * 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.  This debate has been open for a month and has been well-advertised.  Despite that, there was little participation and no reply to the cites offered by user:Tomwsulcer.  Looking at the debate in the context of the disputed move and of the related articles themselves, I do not yet see a clear community consensus.  I am closing this debate for now with a recommendation that it be renominated (if appropriate) once a firmer consensus has emerged on the target page(s).  Rossami (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. Although neither term is well-defined, and both may be neologisms, they're not the same. I know this was created by a disputed move.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I am nonpartisan and worked on a revamp of the highly contentious article corporatocracy and watched it be redirected to corporate plutocracy, and then redirected back again. While discussion about matters such as neologisms and synthesis and original research are ongoing and unlikely to be settled, I think it is fair not to redirect corporate plutocracy to corporatocracy for the reason that there were few sources I could find in which both terms were used, or any definitions indicating that "corporate plutocracy" was the same as "corporatocracy". At the same time, both terms I suspect continue to evolve in common parlance; "corporatocracy" has now attracted a few dictionary definitions as well as usage in a textbook, although I can not say the same for "corporate plutocracy". Generally both terms are highly politically charged such that it is hard to use either term without indicating one's political position, or without making an attack on the other position. Whether "corporate plutocracy" should be a stand-alone article, I am not sure, but I found a few sources indicating use of the term, mostly in left-leaning publications. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (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.

Fox Disambiguation



 * 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. Implausible newly created redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


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

I can't imagine anyone actually searching for fox disambiguation, and if this is acceptable, then we probably need a lot more like it! Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that I and other editors have viewed a number of the edits by this editor as problematic. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete two days old, stats indicate only one visit to the page (strangely enough, before the page was created) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually not that strange. Remember that our stats counter looks at page requests, not page hits.  The stats counter is also case-insensitive.  If a somewhat middling-experienced user were trying to find Fox (disambiguation), they might well try "fox disambiguation" which would also be counted as a 'hit' for the capitalized version.  Keep, by the way.  I do not think that we want to actively encourage these redirects and should coach the creators to spend their time on more productive edits.  But once such a redirect is created, there is zero value to deleting it.  Redirects really are that cheap.  Rossami (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2012 (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.

Nenan



 * 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 both. Ruslik_ Zero 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Not everything needs a navbox (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete: Inappropriate redirect from mainspace to a WP guideline article GotR Talk 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is foreseeable that someone might type "NENAN" in order to reach "WP:NENAN".--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All other such redirects I have seen have been deleted for the reason I gave. In addition, Nenan is NOT the same as NENAN, and see Talk:Jimo for a similar case; the closing administrator decided that Jimo is not the same as JIMO, and hence conducted the move. GotR Talk 07:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just added NENAN.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I think cross-namespace redirects are useful for major Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but less so for fairly obscure essays like this. If someone's experienced and knowledgeable enough to want to read this essay, they probably also know to preface it with a WP:. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a cross namespace redirect which clearly conflicts with article space as it is already linked to from List of township-level divisions of Heilongjiang. 82.132.139.20 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (and I added NENAN to the redirects to be deleted shortly after it was created, although some of the reasoning for deletion doesn't apply. It's still an obscure cross-namespace redirect.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. All redirects from the article space to project space need to evaluated in terms of the balance between usefulness in helping inexperienced Wikipedians find the target, and the risk of harm from confusion or conflict with an actual article. In this case the risk of harm is high (per the anon's comment above) and the value of this page to users unfamiliar with namespaces is nearly nil. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2012 (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.

Monstrous Carbuncle



 * 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 to Charles, Prince of Wales. Ruslik_ Zero  18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Recommend deletion. That an English aristocrat once used this particular phrase to describe the architecture of the National Gallery doesn't mean that it's actually a synonym. Collabi (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) nb: For some reason the template fails to link to the redirect properly; the absolute URL to the page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_carbuncle
 * Delete interesting background. Perhaps we could delete this as an obscure synonym. BTW, I fixed the redlink for you.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 04:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe retarget to Experience Music Project :) D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Charles, Prince of Wales where the phrase is used, with context and a link to National Gallery, in the first paragraph. The link to this redirect should be changed to a link to the carbuncle article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't find myself in this wretched redirect mess if I hadn't wanted to go to Monstrous Carbuncle. BTW, it was not used to describe the architecture of the National Gallery--it was a proposed addition to the National Gallery.  And it wasn't just any old aristocrat--it was Prince Charles himself defending the National Gallery against the onslaught of "modern" architects.  It deserves to be kept. User pchase79830  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefox79830 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 June 2012 (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.