Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 2

November 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 2, 2012

Female Privilege

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 here to change the outcome of the AfD. Tikiwont (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page on female privilege redirects to a section on a page about the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) called Female Privilege. However, that section does not describe what female privilege is. Additionally, Mens Rights Movement is the inappropriate place for a description of female privilege. I revisited a past deletion discussion and found that the article was extremely poor at that time and that most participants favored deletion with only a few suggesting redirection. I was unable to find reputable sources that discussed "Female Privilege." It would be ideal (and appropriate) for the MRM page to contain a brief description about female privilege as it relates to the MRM and a link to the female privilege page for more information if good sources could be found. Barring that, no page is better than poorly pointed redirect. Perpetualization (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Arguing that that the section does not describe what female privilege is a WP:NOEFFORT argument. Why is Mens Rights Movement an inappropriate place for a description of female privilege? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the Mens Rights Movement is not female privilege. Editors on the MRM page (specifically User:Slp1 and I) were discussing removing the female privilege section from the MRM article on the talk page (no other editors have weighed in yet) as we didn't feel it added anything to the article as a separate section and could be merged into the introduction easily (this would of course, kill the redirect, so I have not yet done it). Also, the sources used on the MRM refer to a more general concept of privilege and who has it rather than the specific topic of female privilege. As a (somewhat medicore analogy), why is the feminism page an inappropriate place for a description of male privilege? Perpetualization (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for replying twice, I realized I forgot something. There are multiple views of female privilege other than the MRM view. WP:NPOV requires that we include all of them but many of them are not appropriate for inclusion in the MRM article (as they relate only tangentially to the MRM). Female privilege should be an article. Making it a redirect initially was WP:NOEFFORT on the part of editors involved as there were no editors who desired to clean up and rewrite a (at that time) worthless page. Perpetualization (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2012 (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.

Template:UCIProTour-teams

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 Keep. Harmless and deletion would break historic visions of articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template redirects that are no longer used (no transclusions and no links on talkpages) as they are old names and naming styles. Propose deletion for general housekeeping. SeveroTC 12:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless. Potential search terms. Randomizer3 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers search for templates (these are unused and not going to be used template redirects)? SeveroTC 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. Deletion would mangle page histories — despite what you say, they're linked. As long as these names are redirects to the current names of the templates, revisions such as this one will appear just like they should, but deleting these names would substantially change the appearance of these revisions. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2012 (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/2012_November_2&oldid=1039428324"