Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2013

Neo-Mugwump[edit]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't discuss this term, and it doesn't appear to be in common use. More importantly, it doesn't seem to be a synonym for "Republican In Name Only" in the few cases where it is used as a political descriptor. Unless there is an article somewhere that actually discusses this term, it ought to be deleted to prevent confusion. As a note, this redirect does have an article history, but has never had any references at all for the previous content. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My initial thought is to restore this to an article and send it to AfD. It was described as being "boldly merged" but nothing seems to have actually been merged, and the talk pages of both articles show opposition to a merge, but as this was 2006 things may have changed. I'll leave notes at user talk:The Moose (who did the merge), talk:Republican In Name Only, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics about this discussion as I'm not knowledgeable about US politics. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure neologism/WP:OR. The article was redirected almost seven years ago, and there really wasn't much there anyway. --BDD (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently the term "is sometimes used today as a pejorative for...RINOs", according to 'Isms & 'Ologies.[1] But this is not a dictionary. If there is a re-direct, it should be to "Mugwump" and explained there. TFD (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I will be honest, this is the first time I have read the phrase which is the subject of this RfD, that being said, it has received some coverage in reliable source(s) such as in these books, and in this news article, but IMHO these mentions are not sufficient to meet significant coverage required for a standalone article, and as the term has also been used towards Democrats, a redirect to RINO doesn't appear to be appropriate either; therefore, I am currently supporting deletion. If there is a more appropriate redirect target, I would reconsider my position.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Relevance problem[edit]

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 Speedily or any other flavor you like ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It is reasonably clear that it has been introduced for the single reason of linking to another new article. That article, however, is not on the relevance problem (which is a general and long-standing problem in cognitive science), but on one particular theory which is claimed to claim the solution of many problems of cognitive science (curiously, the relevance problem not among them). 㓟 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if target is deleted (which seems likely at this point). Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete if necessary, but turning the redirect into a stub about the actual "relevance problem" is a preferable solution. Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete target article was already deleted per Afd.--Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_22&oldid=1052656396"