Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3

< May 2
May 4 >

May 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2020.

Aseka-moke

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#Aseka-moke

Black Demon Shark

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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no content about "Black Demon Shark". Delete, possibly WP:MADEUP. Hog Farm (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not made up, WP:RS have been provided for it. The information used to be present at the article to which it redirects, that is List of cryptids, but then someone else removed the information. Leo1pard (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leo1pard:: The linked revision does not mention this cryptid. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03 That's because an inconsiderate user, who did not bother to check given references like this, removed the content, with the excuse that it is WP:SYNTH, when it is not, and this isn't the first time that I've seen someone say 'WP:SYNTH', even if appropriate references are given, but anyways, I partially restored the content, using that book. Leo1pard (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodofox (talk · contribs) should have split the entry instead of deleting the whole thing. Keep as it is now mentioned with a reliable source. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This book briefly mentions that rumors about an entity existed in an area before being cleared up. That appears to be all there was to it. To be clear, the book makes absolutely no mention of the words "cryptid" or "cryptozoology" (really, enough is enough with the WP:SYNTH on WP:Pseudoscience topics in these circles). We still lack reliable sources that establish notability for this topic—not every critter someone misidentifies meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer given below. You should thoroughly check sources before crying out 'WP:SYNTH' or that reliable sources don't exist. Leo1pard (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a mention is restored, but this is also miscapitalised. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhnotsoloud If you didn't see it mentioned over there, then that's because an inconsiderate user, who did not bother to check given references like this, removed the content, with the excuse that it is WP:SYNTH, when it is not, and this isn't the first time that I've seen someone say 'WP:SYNTH', even if appropriate references are given, but anyways, I partially restored the content, using that book. Leo1pard (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the book. It doesn't mention anything whatsoever about the subculture, not even the words "cryptid" or "cryptozoology". Review WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SYNTH. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable secondary sources discussing this topic. Pseudoscience topics require reliable secondary sources discussing them in context. @Leo1pard: is pushing the usual stuff we see in these circles. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloodofox: This one does, so maybe next time you should go about checking sources before saying that someone else is 'pushing' this and that, or that "no reliable secondary sources" discuss what you WP:Don't like. Leo1pard (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to have some more coverage. That said, this coverage all stems from a single episode of Monsterquest, an infamous promoter of cryptozoology (Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). Does a single episode of Monsterquest make something notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion? I don't think so, which is why my vote for delete remains. We're well in deep WP:FRINGE waters here, and the usual 'you just don't like it!' attacks lobbed from adherents aren't likely to ripple the waters much for inclusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodofox Monsterquest isn't the only source for the Black Demon, as shown in Mexico Unexplained, which says that some cryptozoologists said that the Black Demon Shark may be a Megalodon, considering that the description of the Black Demon essentially fits that of Megalodon (with teeth 7 inches (0.18 metres) long, and a body about 35 ft (11 m) long on average), but some fishermen said that it may even be larger than Megalodon! Leo1pard (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC); edited 05:41, 5 May 2020 (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.

List of species rumored or believed to still be alive

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. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of species rumored or believed to still be alive → List of cryptids  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Species rumored or believed to still be alive" isn't the same thing as a cryptid. Hog Farm (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cryptids are species generally believed never to have been alive (extant). There are many species on the critically endangered list which may have gone extinct; but that is not the same as a vague rumour or belief that they have not. Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cryptozoology is a tiny subculture, folk belief about creatures "rumored or believed to still be alive" is widespread well beyond its confines. Impossibly vague redirect. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2020 (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.

Barangils

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. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barangils → Harad#Language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere. Hog Farm (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It was an early draft name for the Haradrim. I think we're fine without it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2020 (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.

Ulugbekhon Maksumov

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. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ulugbekhon Maksumov → INKAS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Ulugbekhon Maksumov (businessman) → INKAS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] added at 03:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Created by an editor with WP:COI. Target article does not even mention this name. I find no reason to keep this redirect! Ninjaediator (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless someone feels like adding sourced information about ru:Максумов, Улугбекхон Юсупхонович to INKAS. Narky Blert (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about Ulugbekhon Maksumov. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could we please add to the nomination the previous title of the page, Ulugbekhon Maksumov (businessman). I can't quite work out how to do that now that we're no longer on 3 May. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Three steps:
    1. Add 
      {{subst:Rfd1|Ulugbekhon Maksumov|content= ... }}
      on the redirect (Ulugbekhon Maksumov (businessman)) and save it
    2. Edit Ulugbekhon Maksumov (businessman) again and change the "day"/"month" arguments in the #invoke:RfD to the date of the existing nomination (here, May 3)
    3. Add 
      {{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=Ulugbekhon Maksumov (businessman)|target=INKAS}}
      to the existing nomination (this section)
    59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    V helpful, thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (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.

Salmiak (inorganic compound)

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salmiak (inorganic compound) → Ammonium chloride  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are two existing redirects, salmiac and salmiak. "Salmiac" redirects to the salt ammonium chloride itself, while "salmiak" redirects to salty liquorice flavoured with the salt. "Salmiak (inorganic compound)" is therefore superfluous, and confusing as well as it uses the "k" spelling but still redirects to the article about the salt itself. Delete this. JIP | Talk 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Ammonium chloride article indicates that salmiak is also an alternative spelling of the compound. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The spelling is used at the current target in a way that indicates that this spelling is sometimes also used for the compound. Hog Farm (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2020 (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.

ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ → Durio graveolens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Thureīyn-rakka → Durio graveolens  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"ริะกกะ" is not a possible morphological combination of Thai script. This is a misspelling which appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia, and is not a plausible search term. I'm also adding Thureīyn-rakka, since a Google search indicates this specific romanisation isn't used anywhere outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Paul 012: what is the proper orthography? --awkwafaba (📥) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awkwafaba, as mentioned on the article talk page, it's probably ทุเรียนรากขา (RTGS: thurian rak kha), but sources conflict on what species this actually refers to. And since it's an uncommon plant rarely known in Thailand, I don't think a foreign-language redirect, even with the corrected spelling, is warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2020 (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.

CNI Director

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. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the many different organizations listed at CNI, I don't think that this redirect is sufficiently unambiguous. I think that deletion may be the cleanest solution, but retargeting to CNI may also be workable. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2020 (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.

Texmf

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. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texmf → TeX  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

no mention at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (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.

*Aqualand el Arenal, Mallorca

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. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Aqualand el Arenal, Mallorca → Aqualand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term (because of the * and the "Mallorca," shown when it was moved to the version of the title without either of these back in 2006)...on the same day the move took place, Aqualand el Arenal, Mallorca was deleted, yet this one somehow survived all these years since this. Regards, SONIC678 18:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. R from move for a since-deleted article; should have been G8ed. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping. Are these eligible for WP:G6? If there's no stylization with the *, it just messes with the search function. Hog Farm (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2020 (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.

❶

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. Unsatisfying, I'm sure, but I don't see another reasonable outcome. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ❿ → 10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➉ → 10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➓ → 10  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❾ → 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➈ → 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➒ → 9  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❽ → 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➇ → 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➑ → 8  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❼ → 7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➆ → 7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➐ → 7  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❻ → 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➅ → 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➏ → 6  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❺ → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➄ → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➎ → 5  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❹ → 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➃ → 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➍ → 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❸ → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➂ → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➌ → 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❷ → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➁ → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➋ → 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➀ → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ➊ → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • ❶ → 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For the sake of consensus, I am nominating this as well: In Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#🄂, a redirection of Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement characters was decided for that characters as there was no mention on the target. This case is analogous. I suggest a retargeting of this and some others (❷❸❹❺❻❼❽❾❿➀➁➂➃➄➅➆➇➈➉➊➋➌➍➎➏➐➑➒➓) to Dingbat#Dingbats Unicode block, where the symbol is mentioned. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all per nom respectively to Dingbat#1 for ❶, Dingbat#10+ for ➉, Dingbat#6- for ➏, and so on following that style of anchors (x for the first bunch, x+ for the second, and x- for the last). — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tagged the redirects. What about 🄌 and 🄋? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's normal to redirect an image of X to the article on X, e.g. ✀ is a redirect to Scissors, not the dingbats page in question. I don't see the benefit of deviating from the general pattern now just because one other discussion deviated from it. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The targeting of these symbols is all over the place; in this scenario I think we should just target where there is the most information for the readers. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend backup: If a reader stumbles over a symbol not displayed on his computer, he will be very confused if he gets redirected to a page about a digit, where a page search doesn't even find that character. On the other hand, I can't think of any other reason for a reader to search up such a symbol. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot see that symbol on my computer, it just displays as a white square with '2700' written inside it. Why would anyone search this and expect it to go to Scissors? – numbermaniac 14:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a scissors emoji. It may not be viewable on your computer, but it's certainly viewable on many computers. —Lowellian (reply) 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It makes sense to target a character representing 1 to 1, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Then what is the sense of these redirects? Who would type that in unless the character isn't displayed correctly? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it could be one searching for information about the symbol, in which case the current target wouldn't help either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Noting that this discussion was out of circulation for a little while. — J947 [cont] 01:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - I'm not too sure, but the above arguments seem rather persuasive. I'd rather that we simply leave these be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Useful to have such characters redirect to something with information about their subject. —Lowellian (reply) 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is there information about the symbols in the article? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There is information about the subject that the symbols represent. —Lowellian (reply) 23:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - these redirects are 100% plausible. Someone may type in a ⓪ into Google and land on this page. Many search engines allow searching via unicode or emoji. Aasim 06:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely if someone is searching ❶ they are not searching for 1 but for information on the symbol itself? — J947 [cont] 07:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I can't imagine that "ooh, this is a symbol I found on Google, I'm going to type this into Wikipedia looking for information on the number it represents" is a common or even existent thought process. — J947 [cont] 07:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can retarget the symbol if needed, I am for that, but I strongly oppose deletion. Aasim 07:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fair. — J947 [cont] 21:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. It's hard to imagine anyone searching with one of these symbols, but it's harder to imagine anyone searching or linking one of these symbols to get an article on the underlying number, as opposed to the symbol itself. From what I can see, no one advocating keep has explained the actual utility of targeting to the number articles by giving a plausible example of when that would be useful. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per nom. I also note that one of the keep votes is justified as opposition to deletion, but I don't see anyone here suggesting deletion as an outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Some people may be looking for the symbols rather than the numbers they show. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The other day, I was trying to figure out what 🥆 was (since it's a little box on my screen), and my best way of finding the answer was to go to 🥆 — it's something related to a rifle. If my computer rendered ❽ as a little box, redirecting ❽ to 8 would helpfully tell me that it's related somehow to 8, but redirecting it to the character set wouldn't be very helpful because I already know that it's some sort of special character. Learning what the character depicts is much more helpful than knowing the set that includes the character, especially since those who care about character sets already probably have better ways of looking them up than simply checking their Wikipedia links. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It does state at the target a description of the symbol (e.g. Dingbat negative circled digit one). — J947 [cont] 19:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I know what it is? On Chrome, I copied the ❽ character and then ran Ctrl+F for it on the Dingbat page, but instead of showing me the ❽ character, the browser found me all 133 appearances of the numeral 8. If that happened to me, I'd guess that it was somehow related to 8, but since Chrome messed up in deeming it identical to the normal numeral character, I wouldn't be very sure in trusting that the character really was an 8. But if I go to ❽ and end up at the 8 page, I'll know that it's not a mistake. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anchors. — J947 [cont] 20:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a definite consensus not to delete these, but there's a completely even split on whether they're better at their current target or at the proposed target. Any further input to avoid a default no-consensus would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 17:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, deletion has never been proposed. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but several responses seemed to me to be primarily phrasing "keep" as "a redirect is good" rather than "this target is good", so it seemed helpful to emphasise what there is consensus on. ~ mazca talk 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Aasim's "Speedy keep" was later clarified to be in favour of retargeting. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. If I searched for these, I would want to be redirected to an explanation about the symbol set. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I generally advocate targetting based on the chracter name (as different fonts may display them however they like). However, the names follow the suit of "DINGBAT CIRCLED SANS-SERIF DIGIT ONE", "DINGBAT NEGATIVE CIRCLED SANS-SERIF DIGIT ONE", and "DINGBAT NEGATIVE CIRCLED DIGIT ONE" making both proposed sets of targets arguable along the lines of the tehnical names. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to agree with Tavix' simple rationale, as well as Nyttend's argument above about searching on a screen for information. Anchors... work but are non-ideal and frequently fail. I do agree some unification/agreement would be nice, so maybe this is a half-weak keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:49, 13 May 2020 (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.

T:CRW

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. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is of a type that is strongly discouraged (it's in the article namespace and wouldn't work the way template shortcuts work). To be kept, such redirects need a high level of use, and this one appears to have received virtually none: for the entire decade of its existence, it's accumulated a single incoming link. It's also confusing because its target is a different template from {{Crw}}. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uanfala --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because among other things it's ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomCrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2020 (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.

T:X11

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. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • T:X11 → Template:X11  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • T:X12 → Template:X12  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are pseudonamespace redirects of a type that is strongly discouraged. Such redirects can be kept if they're widely used, but these don't appear to be used at all. A further complicating factor is that their targets are members of a large family (from {{X1}} all through {{X52}}), it's difficult to see why just these two should have such redirects, and it's confusing when the others don't. The first redirect was discussed at this RfD in 2015, with no resulting consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uanfala --DannyS712 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as they appear to have negligible utility. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per #T:CRW. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (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.

Landsmalsalfabet

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and implausible. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and this and this and this suggest that "landsmålsalfabetets" is a real term, and even that "landsmålsalfabet" may be an alternative version. This is a plausible misspelling of that, and thus a reasonable redirect. Do we have any actual Swedish linguists here who can comment on this? -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, when I type in “Landsmalsal” into the search box, this variant pops up, while the correct (apart from the diacritic mark) one (“Landsmalsalfabetet”) doesn't. This may promote the wrong variant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Landsmålsalfabetet" would probably be the most common correct term, including the final definite article (-et). The final "s" in the form ("landsmålsalfabetets") cited by The Anome above is the genitive suffix. "Landsmålsalfabet" would be an indefinite, as if it was one of many of its kind, but apparently it was an alphabet invented for the specific purpose of being used for any Swedish dialect, with the intention of replacing several different previously-used dialect transcription systems. However, the old encyclopaedia Nordisk familjebok (from abt 1900) uses the indefinite form[1], so it is not incorrect, and a form with stripped diacritic would be a plausible search term for someone seeing it in writing and not knowing how to write the "å". --Hegvald (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2020 (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.

T:Closed

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. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • T:Closed → Template:Closed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • T:Welcome-ql → Template:Welcome-ql  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These two redirects are of a type that's strongly discouraged (they are in the article namespace, so wouldn't work the way template shortcuts normally work). Such redirects can be kept if there's long history of use, but these are relatively recent creations (of 2016 and 2019), have no incoming links, and their targets are relatively obscure templates. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Template:Welcome-ql is obscure and it looks like the editor who created it assumed these redirects were routinely created for templates. Several links to Template:Closed but not article content template and probably not linked frequently enough to have a cross-namespace redirect (its existence probably also encourages creation of similar redirects to other templates). Peter James (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2020 (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.

Antonia maino

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. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antonia maino → Sonia Gandhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a WP:hoax. Nominating for deletion per the discussion at here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the discussion there, Kautilya3 agreed with me that it's not a hoax. There are numerous reliable sources in the discussion there, please go through it before "voting" here.Venue9 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (block-evading sock !vote struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Venue9, stating again that I never agreed with a word of what you said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through what you have typed there, you have admitted that it is not a hoax.Venue9 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and unless I am missing something Kautilya3 never admitted that. They did come to the realization that it wasn’t Wikipedia that generated the hoax but that is not the same this as admitting that it Wasn’t a hoax. If I am missing something can you please link directly where they (Kautilya3) admitted that it wasn’t a hoax?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this as well as all other purported aliases of Sonia Gandhi. These aliases appear to have been generated by Sonia Gandhi's political opponents since 2002 to block her from leadership positions and to maker her look more Italian than she is. The sources before 2002 make no mention of these supposed birth names of Sonia Gandhi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful, also a lettercase typo. Hemant DabralTalk 13:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This hoax has reached frightening proportions. No source making this claim before 2006 has been found.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 08:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one from 2003 giving her birth name as Antonia Maino - [2]. Hzh (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2020 (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.

Antonia Màino

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. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antonia Màino → Sonia Gandhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a WP:hoax. Nominating for deletion per the discussion at here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to support your claims?. Sources published before 2002, before the press conference by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalitha and before Wikipedia popularised it?. - Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my claim. However, it is mentioned in news sources. Just like the claimed birth name of Yogi Adityanath, which is not my claim either. Hemant DabralTalk 14:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the discussion there, Kautilya3 agreed with me that it's not a hoax. There are numerous reliable sources in the discussion there, please go through it before "voting" here.Venue9 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (block-evading sock !vote struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    No, Kautilya3 didn't agree - see below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as for Antonia maino above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the full name of Sonia Gandhi as Edvige Antonia Albina Màino [3], there are also plenty of book sources that gives the name Antonia Maino, some dating back to 2002 - [4]. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. You can have a discussion in the article whether name is real or not, but Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring information. The rationale for the deletion is a misuse of WP:hoax. Hzh (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. The sources before 2002 make no mention of these supposed birth names of Sonia Gandhi. The sources that you gave here cite the press conference of Jayalalitha. If we continue to redirect these names liked we do now, it will further prove the allegations of WP:HOAX. We had a thorough discussion regarding these sources on the article's talk page. I recommend you to refer to that discussion for more details about the sources.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary sources or not is irrelevant. The point is that the name is found widely, it is therefore a valid search term, and not something made up by Wikipedia, therefore not WP:HOAX (I repeat, you are misusing WP:HOAX, even if it is a hoax made up by someone in the past, Wikipedia is free to write something on the hoax). I have read the discussion, but we only have your word (and a small group of people in the talk page) that it is a hoax, when no evidence have been presented whatsoever that it is one. In fact this source from 2003 shows that the premise that it was a hoax perpetuated by Wikipedia to be wrong since the name Antonia Maino wasn't mentioned in the article then - [5]. I would trust Encyclopedia Britannica (indeed many other sources that mentions the name) more than other random editors in Wikipedia. The discussion in the talk page looks like a content dispute to me, and not a valid reason for deleting the redirects. Hzh (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This as well as all other purported aliases of Sonia Gandhi. WP:HOAX nothing else created by Sonia Gandhi's political opponents.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 08:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present any evidence that it is a hoax? Other politicians stressing her foreignness is evidence of xenophobia or maybe even racism, not hoax. Hzh (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Antonia Maino" was revealed by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalithaa at a press conference in 2002.[1] The source of her claim is still unknown. There are no other sources prior to this press conference that says that this alleged name, Antonia Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. The name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was created by Javier Moro in a "fictionalised biography" called 'The Red Sari' which was published in 2008 in Spain and released in India In 2015. There are no other sources before this book's publication that attest that this alleged name, "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. You are giving a source from 2003 for the name "Antonia Maino" and the source citing the press conference of Jayalalithaa. Sonia Gandhi got her EB page back in 2008, the same year Javier Moro's 'The Red Sari' was published in Spain. If you review the edit history of the EB page of Sonia Gandhi, you can see it's only been edited 15 times over the past 12 years. Besides, it took 1 year to fix her birthplace, and it took another 6 years to clarify her birthplace. On 09 June 2009, the lead of Sonia Gandhi's EB lead was born Dec. 9, 1946 , Orbassano , ItalyItalian-born Indian politician), and it took 10 long years to rectify the error and change the birthplace to the current version, born December 9, 1946 , Lusiana, Veneto region, Italy (Italian-born Indian politician). The name Antonia Maino was added to Wikipedia n 17 November 2004 on 17 November 2004 by an anonymous IP, and it got removed by another anonymous IP 16 October 2005 on 16 October 2005. This has happened more often lately. Media will carry everything that politicians say, and it will create lots of search results. Likewise, they will simply copy and paste content from both Wikipedia and EB. This will easily help to generate a search term. You might have heard the pop wisdom that “a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth” at some point in your life. This actually has a well-founded cognitive basis. This is why these kinds of birth names of 73-year-old Sonia Gandhi did not appear prior to 2002. here is RFC on the reliability of EB, and here you can see two admins User:Newslinger discussing how one blocked user get his fringe views on EB. I'm also pinging them for their input if they have any. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you say the 2003 source cited the press conference of Jayalalithaa - I don't see it - [6]. Any edits on Wikipedia after that date is therefore not something made up by random editors. I don't see you presenting any evidence, simply because her opponents used her foreignness to attack her is not evidence that the name was made up. You also presented no proof that the full name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was invented in The Red Sari. In fact the full name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was given in this 2007 book - [7] before your claim of its invention in 2008. Just because you say it is a lie does not make it so. Give us the proof, otherwise what you saying is just OR. You seem to make random claim about EB editors, when everything written in 2008 would have been written, reviewed, or revised by external advisers and experts [8]. The name is also given in other encyclopedia - [9], I would believe them more than a random editor in Wikipedia who has presented no proof. I see your assertions without any proof and assertions that can be shown to be false more problematic than the actual existence of these redirects. Hzh (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Priya Sahgal, Original Article: Jaya's tirade against Sonia's Italian background warms the cockles of the swadeshi brigade More Coverage, Outlook, 16 September 2002.
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.

Antonia Maino

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. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antonia Maino → Sonia Gandhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a WP:hoax. Nominating for deletion per the discussion at here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn, I'm not the creater of this redirect, Kindly check the page history. Hemant DabralTalk 17:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources to support your claims?. Sources published before 2002, before the press conference by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalitha and before Wikipedia popularised it?. - Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my claim. However, it is mentioned in news sources. Just like the claimed birth name of Yogi Adityanath, which is not my claim either. Hemant DabralTalk 14:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORGs are only reliable for news, not for historical matters, and it should be verifiable too. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as for Antonia maino above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the full name of Sonia Gandhi as Edvige Antonia Albina Màino [10], there are also plenty of book sources that gives the name Antonia Maino, some dating back to 2002 - [11]. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. You can have a discussion in the article whether the name is real or not, but Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring information. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. The sources before 2002 make no mention of these supposed birth names of Sonia Gandhi. The sources that you gave here cite the press conference of Jayalalitha. If we continue to redirect these names liked we do now, it will further prove the allegations of WP:HOAX. We had a thorough discussion regarding these sources on the article's talk page. I recommend you to refer to that discussion for more details about the sources.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary sources or not is irrelevant. The point is that the name is found widely, it is therefore a valid search term, and not something made up by Wikipedia, therefore not WP:HOAX (I repeat, you are misusing WP:HOAX, even if it is a hoax made up by someone in the past, Wikipedia is free to write something on the hoax). I have read the discussion, but we only have your word (and a few other people in the talk page) that it is a hoax, when no evidence have been presented whatsoever that it is one. In fact this source from 2003 shows that the premise that it was a hoax perpetuated by Wikipedia to be wrong since the name Antonia Maino wasn't mentioned in the article then - [12]. I would trust Encyclopedia Britannica (indeed many other sources that mentions the name) more than some random editors who did not give any evidence here. The discussion in the talk page looks like a content dispute to me, and not a valid reason for deleting the redirects here. Hzh (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source for this controversy needs to be discussed and decided on the article's talk page, not here. If reliable information is found, the birth name would be mentioned in the article, and then a redirect can be created on that basis. Otherwise, creating a redirect is a back door method of adding controversial information to Wikipedia without obtaining CONSENSUS. No case has been made that somebody would want to search for "Antonia Maino" instead of "Sonia Gandhi". It is not a plausible search key. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the name is found widely is various sources, and that made this (and other variants) valid search terms. Alternate names are also valid redirects. No evidence has been offered that this is a hoax perpetrated by Wikipedia, there are in fact other evidence that it is not a hoax, therefore this deletion discussion does not have a valid rationale. There is only the indication that her political opponents chose to emphasis her foreignness by using her birth name, which may suggest xenophobia or possibly racism, but not hoax. The discussion in her article's talk page is as far as I can see a content dispute, and not relevant for the discussion on redirects. The fact that the assertions made in the talk page contain falsehoods (e.g. no source making this claim before 2006), which can easily be disproved by a google search e.g. [13], does not fill me with confidence that the claim of a hoax has any merit. Hzh (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This as well as all other purported aliases of Sonia Gandhi. WP:HOAX nothing else created by Sonia Gandhi's political opponents.
Can you present any evidence that this is a hoax? Other politicians stressing her foreignness is evidence of their xenophobia, not hoax. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Antonia Maino" was revealed by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalithaa at a press conference in 2002.[1] The source of her claim is still unknown. There are no other sources prior to this press conference that says that this alleged name, Antonia Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. The name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was created by Javier Moro in a "fictionalised biography" called 'The Red Sari' which was published in 2008 in Spain and released in India In 2015. There are no other sources before this book's publication that attest that this alleged name, "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. You are giving a source from 2003 for the name "Antonia Maino" and the source citing the press conference of Jayalalithaa. Sonia Gandhi got her EB page back in 2008, the same year Javier Moro's 'The Red Sari' was published in Spain. If you review the edit history of the EB page of Sonia Gandhi, you can see it's only been edited 15 times over the past 12 years. Besides, it took 1 year to fix her birthplace, and it took another 6 years to clarify her birthplace. On 09 June 2009, the lead of Sonia Gandhi's EB lead was born Dec. 9, 1946 , Orbassano , ItalyItalian-born Indian politician), and it took 10 long years to rectify the error and change the birthplace to the current version, born December 9, 1946 , Lusiana, Veneto region, Italy (Italian-born Indian politician). The name Antonia Maino was added to Wikipedia n 17 November 2004 on 17 November 2004 by an anonymous IP, and it got removed by another anonymous IP 16 October 2005 on 16 October 2005. This has happened more often lately. Media will carry everything that politicians say, and it will create lots of search results. Likewise, they will simply copy and paste content from both Wikipedia and EB. This will easily help to generate a search term. You might have heard the pop wisdom that “a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth” at some point in your life. This actually has a well-founded cognitive basis. This is why these kinds of birth names of 73-year-old Sonia Gandhi did not appear prior to 2002. here is RFC on the reliability of EB, and here you can see two admins User:Newslinger discussing how one blocked user get his fringe views on EB. I'm also pinging them for their input if they have any. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not presented any proof it is a hoax. You assertion is not proof, just your own research which can be shown to be false. See more detailed reply in the entry above. You should have bundled all these together, there is no point in saying the same thing in multiple entries. Hzh (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Priya Sahgal, Original Article: Jaya's tirade against Sonia's Italian background warms the cockles of the swadeshi brigade More Coverage, Outlook, 16 September 2002.
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.

Edvige Antonia Albina Màino

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. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edvige Antonia Albina Màino → Sonia Gandhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a WP:hoax. Nominating for deletion per the discussion at here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the discussion there, Kautilya3 agreed with me that it's not a hoax. There are numerous reliable sources in the discussion there, please go through it before "voting" here.Venue9 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (block-evading sock !vote struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Venue9, I never agreed with anything you said. Please STOP using my name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You at least agreed that it is not a hoax and that name was not created by Wikipedia.Venue9 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the only thing they admitted was to being relieved that the hoax didn’t come from Wikipedia, which is not the same thing as believing that it wasn’t a hoax.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure if this is the real full name of said person. Hemant DabralTalk 13:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as for Antonia maino above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the full name of Sonia Gandhi as Edvige Antonia Albina Maino [14], also in books - [15]. There are also plenty of book sources that gives the name Antonia Maino, some dating back to 2002 - [16]. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. You can have a discussion in the article whether name is real or not, but Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring information. The rationale for the deletion is a misuse of WP:hoax. Hzh (talk) 09:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. The sources before 2002 make no mention of these supposed birth names of Sonia Gandhi. The sources that you gave here cite the press conference of Jayalalitha. If we continue to redirect these names liked we do now, it will further prove the allegations of WP:HOAX. We had a thorough discussion regarding these sources on the article's talk page. I recommend you to refer to that discussion for more details about the sources.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation is given in the other entries. It is a valid search term, I would trust Encyclopedia Britannica more than a random group of editors who did not present any evidence that it is a hoax. Read WP:HOAX and stop misusing it. Hzh (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This as well as all other purported aliases of Sonia Gandhi. WP:HOAX nothing else created by Sonia Gandhi's political opponents.
Then do present evidence that it is a hoax. Other politicians stressing her foreignness is evidence of xenophobia, not hoax. Are you also claiming that Encyclopedia Britannica is part of the hoax? Hzh (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Antonia Maino" was revealed by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalithaa at a press conference in 2002.[1] The source of her claim is still unknown. There are no other sources prior to this press conference that says that this alleged name, Antonia Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. The name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was created by Javier Moro in a "fictionalised biography" called 'The Red Sari' which was published in 2008 in Spain and released in India In 2015. There are no other sources before this book's publication that attest that this alleged name, "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. You are giving a source from 2003 for the name "Antonia Maino" and the source citing the press conference of Jayalalithaa. Sonia Gandhi got her EB page back in 2008, the same year Javier Moro's 'The Red Sari' was published in Spain. If you review the edit history of the EB page of Sonia Gandhi, you can see it's only been edited 15 times over the past 12 years. Besides, it took 1 year to fix her birthplace, and it took another 6 years to clarify her birthplace. On 09 June 2009, the lead of Sonia Gandhi's EB lead was born Dec. 9, 1946 , Orbassano , ItalyItalian-born Indian politician), and it took 10 long years to rectify the error and change the birthplace to the current version, born December 9, 1946 , Lusiana, Veneto region, Italy (Italian-born Indian politician). The name Antonia Maino was added to Wikipedia n 17 November 2004 on 17 November 2004 by an anonymous IP, and it got removed by another anonymous IP 16 October 2005 on 16 October 2005. This has happened more often lately. Media will carry everything that politicians say, and it will create lots of search results. Likewise, they will simply copy and paste content from both Wikipedia and EB. This will easily help to generate a search term. You might have heard the pop wisdom that “a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth” at some point in your life. This actually has a well-founded cognitive basis. This is why these kinds of birth names of 73-year-old Sonia Gandhi did not appear prior to 2002. here is RFC on the reliability of EB, and here you can see two admins User:Newslinger discussing how one blocked user get his fringe views on EB. I'm also pinging them for their input if they have any. Akhiljaxxn. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See more detailed reply above. You have presented no evidence that it is a hoax, while your claim that "Edvige Antonia Albina Màino" was created in 2008 has been debunked. Hzh (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Priya Sahgal, Original Article: Jaya's tirade against Sonia's Italian background warms the cockles of the swadeshi brigade More Coverage, Outlook, 16 September 2002.
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.

Edvige Antonia Albina Maino

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. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edvige Antonia Albina Maino → Sonia Gandhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to be a WP:hoax. Nominating for deletion per the discussion at here Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the discussion there, Kautilya3 agreed with me that it's not a hoax. There are numerous reliable sources in the discussion there, please go through it before "voting" here.Venue9 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (block-evading sock !vote struck. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, I never agreed with you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You at least agreed that it is not a hoax and that name was not created by Wikipedia.Venue9 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only thing they said was they were relieved that the hoax didn’t come from Wikipedia which is not the same as saying they didn’t believe that there wasn’t a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure if this is the real full name of said person. Hemant DabralTalk
  • Delete - as for Antonia maino above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the full name of Sonia Gandhi as Edvige Antonia Albina Maino [17], also in books - [18]. There are also plenty of book sources that gives the name Antonia Maino, some dating back to 2002 - [19]. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. You can have a discussion in the article whether name is real or not, but Wikipedia is not in the business of censoring information. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. Whether that is her true birth name or not is irrelevant, there are enough sources for these names for the redirects to exist. The sources before 2002 make no mention of these supposed birth names of Sonia Gandhi. The sources that you gave here cite the press conference of Jayalalitha. If we continue to redirect these names liked we do now, it will further prove the allegations of WP:HOAX. We had a thorough discussion regarding these sources on the article's talk page. I recommend you to refer to that discussion for more details about the sources.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See explanation given above for the other entries. It is a valid search term. I would trust Encyclopedia Britannica more than a random group of editors who did not present any proof that it is a hoax, and you should not misuse WP:HOAX. Hzh (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This as well as all other purported aliases of Sonia Gandhi. WP:HOAX nothing else created by Sonia Gandhi's political opponents.
Evidence is needed before you can claim it is a hoax. Other politicians stressing her foreignness is evidence of xenophobia, not hoax. Are you also claiming that Encyclopedia Britannica is part of the hoax? Hzh (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Antonia Maino" was revealed by Sonia Gandhi's political opponent Jayalalithaa at a press conference in 2002.[1] The source of her claim is still unknown. There are no other sources prior to this press conference that says that this alleged name, Antonia Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. The name "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino" was created by Javier Moro in a "fictionalised biography" called 'The Red Sari' which was published in 2008 in Spain and released in India In 2015. There are no other sources before this book's publication that attest that this alleged name, "Edvige Antonia Albina Maino", is the birth name of Sonia Gandhi. You are giving a source from 2003 for the name "Antonia Maino" and the source citing the press conference of Jayalalithaa. Sonia Gandhi got her EB page back in 2008, the same year Javier Moro's 'The Red Sari' was published in Spain. If you review the edit history of the EB page of Sonia Gandhi, you can see it's only been edited 15 times over the past 12 years. Besides, it took 1 year to fix her birthplace, and it took another 6 years to clarify her birthplace. On 09 June 2009, the lead of Sonia Gandhi's EB lead was born Dec. 9, 1946 , Orbassano , ItalyItalian-born Indian politician), and it took 10 long years to rectify the error and change the birthplace to the current version, born December 9, 1946 , Lusiana, Veneto region, Italy (Italian-born Indian politician). The name Antonia Maino was added to Wikipedia n 17 November 2004 on 17 November 2004 by an anonymous IP, and it got removed by another anonymous IP 16 October 2005 on 16 October 2005. This has happened more often lately. Media will carry everything that politicians say, and it will create lots of search results. Likewise, they will simply copy and paste content from both Wikipedia and EB. This will easily help to generate a search term. You might have heard the pop wisdom that “a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes the truth” at some point in your life. This actually has a well-founded cognitive basis. This is why these kinds of birth names of 73-year-old Sonia Gandhi did not appear prior to 2002. here is RFC on the reliability of EB, and here you can see two admins User:Newslinger discussing how one blocked user get his fringe views on EB. I'm also pinging them for their input if they have any. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See more detailed reply above. You have presented no evidence that it is a hoax and made false claim yourself. Hzh (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Priya Sahgal, Original Article: Jaya's tirade against Sonia's Italian background warms the cockles of the swadeshi brigade More Coverage, Outlook, 16 September 2002.
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.

RISM (identifier)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#RISM (identifier)

R/ForeverAlone

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. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R/Foo is a way to refer to the reddit subreddit Foo, so in this case R/ForeverAlone refers to the ForeverAlone subreddit, which I assume once had a ection but now no longer does. Speedy delete R/ForeverAlone (G7), delete ForeverAlone --DannyS712 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. If the subreddit Forever Alone were controversial then it should be mentioned in the article, and it isn't. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subreddit could be mentioned at Incel, which already mentions the term "forever alone" and the subreddit /r/ForeverAloneWomen. See this source. [20] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2020 (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.

Veluna

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. The target was changed such that the delete votes are moot, and the editor who initiated this discussion has flipped their vote to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unhelpful, as Veluna is not mentioned at the target. Readers searching for "Veluna" won't find anything useful by using this redirect. A few other pages mention "Veluna", but none of them provide much information about it, so I don't think retargetting is possible. Not a very active user (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my !vote to Keep, because Veluna is now mentioned at the target. Not a very active user (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons the nom outlines, Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the "locations" subsection provides information on what Veluna is: "The Archclericy of Voll, originally a vassal to the Viceroyalty of Ferrond, became known as Veluna and claimed independence from the Great Kingdom of Aerdy in 254 CY." Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:04, 4 May 2020 (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.

Trippolette

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. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This song isn't mentioned anywhere in these redirects' target article (to be fair, it was composed by a member of the Harmonix team who worked on this game, but it doesn't appear to ). It is mentioned on these three lists, but I'm not sure where it should go, although I am leaning kinda more towards the Guitar Hero one, specifically the section "Other songs," or if it should otherwise be deleted... Regards, SONIC678 07:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this redirect is ambiguous then an uninhibited Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. If there are multiple unsatisfactory targets, the search tool is better than a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *Trippolette, no opinion on the other right now. The * character interferes with the searchbar. Hog Farm (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2020 (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.

*Ysgol y Fron

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. As there is only one other redirect from an individual school to the target article, I won't move this, but if anyone wanted to create a redirect at Ysgol y Fron, I would not see that as illegitimate. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a school on the list that isn't notable enough to have its own article (which was explained when this started out as an article consisting of only a single run-on sentence in 2013), which would be a good reason to redirect this here, but the * in the title makes this redirect questionably useful (as explained in some earlier nominations), which may be why it only got a grand total of four pageviews since July 2015. Also, strangely, we don't have Ysgol y Fron. Regards, SONIC678 07:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An unlikely Search term, and probably created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not least because a wildcard * could mess up searching. Narky Blert (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having the leading * character causing searchbar interference. Hog Farm (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ysgol y Fron, which is a primary school in Flintshire and clearly what it was supposed to be in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2020 (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.

*Finlay

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. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Finlay → Finlay (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Leftover from page move, doesn't seem to be part of a stylization, having a leading * character messes with the searchbar. Hog Farm (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An unlikely Search term, probably created (or left undeleted) in error, and anyway the wrong target (unless the band was stylised with an asterix). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly an unlikely search term. CycloneYoris talk! 23:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2020 (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.

T:RPT

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. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with no incoming links, of a type that is strongly discouraged. Its name doesn't have any connection to its target – it was initially created as a redirect to Template:R from plausible term, which existed as a separate template for less than two hours at one point back in 2014, before getting redirected to the current target, for which it now serves as an obscure alias. – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's well-researched rationale. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I do not understand the retarget. Seemingly only has three links. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (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.

T:R

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 11#T:R

T:VGR

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. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect of a type that has been discouraged for some time; deletion would be best unless there's evidence of use, but I'm not seeing any – it's been around since 2008, and for over this period has accumulated just 11 links, more than half of which are mentions in various RfD discussions (where it has been part of several bundled nominations). Its name clashes with both Template:Vgr (a redirect with two dozen uses) and, less relevantly, WP:VGR (both of which, however, are more recently created). Pinging Bertaut, who's previously said they use this shortcut. – Uanfala (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom'swell-researched rationale, noting especially that it's ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. @Shhhnotsoloud: Ambiguity is only relevant to the mainspace (i.e. regarding the redirect and target). The vast majority of shortcuts (including those in the pseudo-namespaces) could serve to abbreviate other non-mainspace targets. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:30, 8 May 2020 (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.

Stayer

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 move disambiguation draft and horse article as discussesd. --

Not sure what should be done here. The article Motor-paced racing does mention the term stayer, but doesn't really explain what they are in the context of cycling. I would suggest that the primary term really should be Stayer (horse) but that article isn't very well developed. Otherwise at the very least I think it should be a disambiguation page, but really I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou both to Shhhnotsoloud and Narky Blert for your suggestions and actions. For what it's worth I support Narky Blet's proposal here. A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support it as well.Ekem (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate at the base title. Per WP:PRIMARYRED, The existing article is not automatically the primary topic; stayer (horse) doesn't automatically become primary just because it's the only article called "stayer" — particularly when it's a one-line dicdef cited to a glossary, while motor-paced racing discusses the cycling concept extensively and gets eight times as many page views [21]. Also, if stayer (horse) can't be expanded beyond its current state, it should be merged to glossary of equestrian terms or somewhere. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the relevance of those pageview stats is. motor-paced racing has hundreds of incoming links, whereas stayer (horse) only has a handful from actual articles. And motor-paced racing only mentions the term "stayer", it isn't an article about what a "stayer" is in the context of cycling, so again I'm not sure of the relevance of pageview stats for determining a primary topic. I'm going to put a note on the Horse Racing wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing) suggesting that someone more knowledgeable than me could expand the article. A7V2 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the pageview stats is to figure out what people are likely to be searching for when they type "Stayer" into the search bar, and it seems that very few of them are looking for the horse racing concept. See WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. Also note, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic — as in the coverage of "stayer" within the motor-paced racing article. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually answer my question so I will rephrase: what is the relevance of the pageviews of the article motor-paced racing in determining the primary topic of the term "Stayer"? The article is clearly not really about "stayers" in the context of cycling, it is about motor paced cycle racing. I'm not denying that the term is mentioned there, and recent edits by Ekem have made the meaning of the term clearer, but the article isn't about stayers. And looking at pageview stats for Stayer (the redirect) show it is searched for consistently only around 1/4 to 1/2 as much as Stayer (horse) [22]. A7V2 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2020 (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/2020_May_3&oldid=956661619"