Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 20

April 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2023.

Wilfred Clarke

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. ✗plicit 03:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted since it gives the false impression that an article exists bearing this title. Even if an article existed, this Wilfred Clarke would not be primary since other men receive more frequent mention in Wikipedia entries. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Several Wilfred Clarkes mentioned on WP, so this gets in the way of the search engine. Gets almost no hits anyway, and since all 6 incoming wikilinks are basketball-related, better as a redlink on those articles. Station1 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to enable uninhibited Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Noogenesis

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. ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noogenesis → Noosphere  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Semantically incorrect redirection. Redirection to the article "noosphere", the name "noogenesis", which is not a synonym for the term represented by the name of redirection, and the article does not fully describe this term as part of a more general article. An article about "noogenesis", the concept, the history of its appearance, scientific research and development in modern times deserves, in my opinion, an independent existence. It may be advisable to disconnect "noogenesis" from redirection, designate an independent article "noogenesis" for further editing.DoubleNoo (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. You keep on saying "Semantically incorrect redirection" in various places but this doesn't seem to mean anything. We are not deleting this perfectly plausible redirect just to make space for what is very likely to be a spam article. DanielRigal (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this is a plausible search term, the current target isn't helpful to anyone as it doesn't actually provide any information about this topic. Some other language Wikipedias have separate articles which clearly aren't spam. Looking at the article the nominator created when overwriting the article, it doesn't look like spam either. In-fact, it looks like a partial translation of the French-language article. It's not flawless, but it seems unfair to dismiss it as "spam". – Scyrme (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason this redirect is up for discussion here is that an attempt to revert the redirect back to a rather spammy former article was reverted. Our nominator here has a clear COI and has just been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user making dubious articles about noothis, noothat and nootheother, including this one. Clearly there is good reason to be very suspicious. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong though. If there are valid articles in other languages, and those are not just subtle spam flying under the radar, then maybe there is a topic here and a bit of translation work might be worthwhile. That said, I think that having a walled garden of separate nooarticles is unhelpful. These are all related topics of minor individual notability, gathering them together into one place, one sphere, a noosphere if you will, still makes the most sense. DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless someone volunteers to translate content (or salvage it from partial translation made by this sock), I think deletion better addresses the issues we've both raised than keeping. A deleted title doesn't create a walled garden, and the deletion log would probably link to this discussion, providing context that might help if there are any future issues in this area. – Scyrme (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aeremin regarding the OP. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This term is neither mentioned or explained at target. The French Wikipedia has a separate article for Noogenesis [fr], the content of which suggests that "noogenesis" is an independent topic that actually predates the concept of the "noosphere". However, the same article also notes that the concept was discussed by Chardin, and so is relevant to the topic of the noosphere. This is affirmed by other language Wikipedias that also have separate articles for "noogenesis".
A redirect doesn't necessarily have to be "semantically correct" synonym of the targetl; it can simply be a subtopic or related term, which this is, however, for a concept like "noogenesis" there should at least be some material about that topic at the target to justify a redirect. Since there is no material, regardless of whether the nominator is a sock, I think the nomination is correct in that the title should be vacated until relevant content is added to Wikipedia, either at that title or as a section somewhere. Deletion would allow uninhibited searching and the creation of redlinks to encourage content edition, per WP:REDYES. – Scyrme (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki does not appear to have any substantive information about this, and if that's the case then this redirect should be deleted, and all wikilinks reviewed: the link to frwiki at Noology made into a correct ILL, and those at See also sections removed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Ous

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. ✗plicit 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely abbreviation that is a confusing mess of alphabet soup. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Created a couple days ago for unknown reason. Useless at best. Station1 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Template:OUS. Searching in templatespace reveals this redirect, its target, my proposed other target, and a handful of passing mentions that are not worth a retarget. But since Ous is a disambiguation page and this redirect has no links, I'm fine with deletion too. Duckmather (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could perhaps be deleted per R3 as it could mean anything. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Chinese Transliteration Redirects to Korean People

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. Editors remain relatively evenly divided on whether these redirects are helpful. signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:RLOTE- Mandarin transliteration 747pilot (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Presumably this is the transliteration of the Korean Hanja script, which uses Chinese characters. IMO, that's a sufficient connection for RLOTE purposes. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Patar knight No, it's the transliteration with the Chinese pronunciation and has never been used in Korea. Script doesn't equal pronunciation. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The test for RLOTE is not use within the redirect target's home country, but a broader requirement for some kind of genuine cultural connection. Since Hanja characters are almost exclusively identical to their Chinese counterparts, I think that is sufficient for RLOTE. Generally, if you see something written in a foreign language, you should be able to find the relevant Wikipedia article by searching for a romanized version. As long as there's no errors, having such redirects is probably marginally useful at worst. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, people finding things written in foreign languages search using that foreign language's transliteration. Assuming that some Korean articles still use Hanja, readers of it will understand that it's Korean and search for its Korean romanization. Readers of Chinese articles should search up Chinese in their own Wikipedias. By this logic we should keep redirects of Tangnade Telangpu to Donald Trump and romaji redirects of Hanja. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously there are people familiar with both English and Chinese, and telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful. It's also likely that these users would not be as familiar with Korean and would not known the Korean romanization, or encounter the characters in a setting that is ambiguous as to the language or without sufficient context to otherwise identify the subject. Your examples can be distinguished from this case, and don't rebut my point that if there is a foreign term properly rendered in its native language, a valid romanization is an argument to keep per RLOTE. I believe RFD has in the past similarly kept Cyrillic romanizations of terms from other Slavic countries.
    Donald Trump is an American, and American English does not use Chinese characters, so this would fail RLOTE, though perhaps if it is covered, it might be redirected to an article on Donald Trump's foreign policy, Chinese use of transliteration in foreign policy, etc. The romaji case is more compelling, though perhaps too remote for RLOTE. It is both less direct, since Hanja => Chinese romanization is one step, but Hanja => Japanese kana => Japanese romaji is two steps (with an additional step if you want to factor in the linguistic history of kanji and hanja both being derived from Chinese), and would also be much less useful because of the much lower number of speakers.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    telling them to use the Chinese Wikipedia when they want to find an English article isn't particularly helpful, and so isn't deleting other redirects that fail RLOTE. To find the articles Chinese speakers can just type out the Hanja, they don't need to romanize it first.
    I get your point on English not using Chinese. However, Hanja to Romaji uses the same steps as Hanja to Pinyin. Pinyin is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Chinese characters mainland variant->Pinyin and Romaji is Hanja (Chinese characters South Korea variant)->Kanji (Chinese characters Japan variant)->Romaji. I do not see why you think Hanja needs to be converted to Japanese kana, which counts as an alternative "romanization" system with Chinese roots just like Bopomofo though it's more mainstream and covers more words, first. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are scenarios where it is might be easier to type in a romanization than typing hanja (e.g. lack of familiarity with/access to a hanja/traditional Chinese input system, encountering the hanja in a non-digital format). I guess if we account for simplified Chinese characters vs. the traditional ones used in hanja, it would be an additional step there, but many Chinese users would have passing familiarity with traditional characters or might be from somewhere where it is still used (e.g. Taiwan), which reduces that friction. My understanding of romaji, though I may be mistaken, is that although the pronunciation in all systems is the same, it is technically derived from the pronunciation of the hiragana/katakana versions of the kanji, so there is an additional layer of remoteness for RLOTE purposes. I'm not at all familiar with if the hanja used in South Korean names would be among the most commonly taught kanji characters, so perhaps this is a distinction without a difference, though the utility argument would still apply. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These scenarios are still too useless to obstruct RLOTE. Hiragana/Katakana is just a way to represent pronunciation. You can go straight from Kanji to Romaji. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, while researching more in depth for the above conversation, I found this article from Korea JoongAng Daily, with a brief mention of how Chinese tourists referred to the then South Korean president by the pinyin of her name in Hanja as opposed to a transliteration of how her name would be pronounced in Korean. They take pictures with their phones, and you can hear many of them talking with excitement about Piao Jinhui, the Chinese pronunciation of the name of President Park Geun-hye. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see my reply above.Aaron Liu (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aaron Liu: following multiple relistings it is not clear what or where your "reply above" is any longer. Please could you repeat and/or link to it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply to Patar knight Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aaron Liu's comments, and more generally the consensus at previous discussions (e.g. Jin Zhengen) that WP:RLOTE applies to these kinds of retranscriptions of proper names. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Listed the previous RfDs for a couple of entries. A third relist because of minimal participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None Patar Knight's arguments are persuasive, in my opinion. I don't agree that because Korean hanja names are often written identically to their Chinese counterparts that this means there is sufficient cultural affinity to justify a redirect. By that reasoning literally all Korean topics could justifiably have pinyin redirects, since they could be written in hanja characters and hanja characters could be read as hanzi. In-fact, the same argument could be used to justify redirects from Japanese romanisations, since they could also be read as kanji. Could also justify creating pinyin and Korean redirects for Japanese topics, for that matter. It's a pandora's box, it's not helpful to English-speaking readers, and it inhibits the search results for anyone looking for Chinese names that share the same pinyin romanisation. (For example, there are number of Chinese people who share the name "Li Mingbo", although none have articles on Wikipedia yet.)
That pinyin can be easier to type into a search engine than hanja is irrelevant when Korean romanisations are even easier to type in for English speakers as they lack accents and would be more familiar to English-speaking readers looking for English-language information.
Chinese tourists reading Korean names written in hanja according to the mandarin reading of those characters has absolutely no bearing on whether there is a cultural affinity between these topics in English. The only thing it demonstrates is that Chinese-speaking people often know people by their Chinese name rather than their native name. As noted by Aaron Liu, that's true for people whose native names are English not just for Korean. I don't agree that because Korean names can be natively written in Chinese characters that this makes the Chinese names of Korean people culturally relevant for English-speaking readers.
If these Korean people were of dual nationality, Korean nationals of Chinese heritage, Korean residents of China, or were widely known in English by their Chinese name then there would be grounds for such an affinity. I don't think any of these is the case here. – Scyrme (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful, as indicated by pageviews. Fine with deletion if these transliterations are added somewhere in the respective articles, as search gets the readers to the target that way. J947 † edits 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Disruptor (comics)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13#Disruptor (comics)

Christian liberty

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 Christian liberty was converted to article, Retarget Christian freedom to it, and Delete Liberty, Christian. Jay 💬 12:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated target, misleading. The concept of liberty in Christianity is bigger that the target (e.g. Immortale Dei defines liberty as "a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object", and in Libertas it is defined as "[consisting in] that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law"). I therefore propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unrelated. The intention here seems to be the idea of private judgement, that is, freedom of opinion, regarding matters that aren't formally established as dogma. Adiaphora clearly relates to that topic. I do see how it could be a surprising target for some readers though, particuarly if they don't have prior knowledge or were expecting a different topic, such as Liberal Christianity or Christian liberalism(a redirect to Christian left).
I don't have an opinion regarding Christian liberty and Christian freedom, but I'd recommending deleting Liberty, Christian.
Liberty, Christian is in the format of an index designed to help navigate a printed work, specifically that of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Creating titles in the format of a print index is costly on several grounds, and entirely unnecessary on an online encyclopedia which is navigated principally through hyperlinks and a search engine. The redirect was created as part of Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. As I noted in a previous RfD for a similarly formated redirect (which ended in deletion), it's not even clear that creating redirects in this format was intended as some of the links listed on that project page are instead piped and link to their normally formated titles. – Scyrme (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the old dilemma, isn't it? Do I create the article in the middle of the RfD discussion? StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as resolved thanks to StAnselm. Srnec (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

The subcontinent

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 1#The subcontinent

Deaths in 2024

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. Jay 💬 11:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. And not sure why it would point to the prior year target. Onel5969 TT me 08:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's enticing to create, given how massively used it'll be, but not helpful at the moment to the reader. For a retarget, I'm unfortunately not aware of any deaths planned to take place in 2024 that we have information about. :) J947 † edits 09:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes, it may be tempting to create this redirect, especially if you are aware that the title will probably garner millions of pageviews throughout the next year, but currently no article has information on deaths in 2024, real or fictional. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear case of over-zealous placeholding by death techies. Ref (chew)(do) 13:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now --Lenticel (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. It should be recreated when the time comes. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as possibly useful but more likely confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless, unless you have a crystal ball. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are executions scheduled and/or expected to take place in 2024, and there will definitely be terminally ill people whose estimated life expectancy is such they are predicted to die next year (although I haven't looked to see if either applies to anyone we have an article about), but death penalties are frequently commuted and executions rescheduled, and there are innumerable cases of people living much longer or shorter than their doctors predicted so WP:CRYSTAL firmly applies. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Henry Clay Foster

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. Jay 💬 11:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Person was mentioned in this 2018 version of an article when the redirect was created. That content is no longer in the encyclopedia, so the redirect (most recently to Tiger versus Lion#Weight, a non-existent section of an article which is currently at AfD) is now useless. It was recently retargeted to a dab page, but as he is not mentioned there this is still useless. PamD 07:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - user is trying to prop up their pet theories. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment UtherSRG Wrong, but delete it anyway. Leo1pard (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC); 11:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Redirects containing "language ()"

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. ✗plicit 03:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "()" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete. These are simply the remnants of page moves; ideally rd's would not have been left when they were moved. I don't see any incoming links to worry about. — kwami (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the brackets make these totally implausible search terms. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

POSE ()

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. ✗plicit 03:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "()" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: same as above, the brackets make these totally implausible search terms. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bot error. POSE ( was created as a redirect in a page move accident, and a bot "helpfully" created a redirect with the matching closing parenthesis. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Bxvi

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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful, nonsensical, extremely vague. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eh, despite what the nomination says, this term – normally capitalised – seems to refer to Benedict XVI a large majority of the time. Still leaning towards deletion, although there are a surprising amount of pageviews. This discussion hinges on why there are so many and where they came from, really. J947 † edits 00:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a typo for some word “b_vi”; it abbreviation of Benedict XVI is esoteric at best Dronebogus (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable search term, and the term "Bxvi" returns a whole lot of times that it gets used as an abbreviation for Pope Benedict XVI. See Rod Dreher, Aleteia, The Catholic Herald, The Catholic Weekly, et cetera. The reason it gets a large amount of pageviews is because this abbreviation gets used by Catholic folks who don't want to type out the full name (or, for space reasons in publishing, choose to use the acronym). This is a sensible redirect that targets the WP:PTOPIC for that search term. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources that Red tailed Hawks found. I don't no why a heavily visited and unambiguous redirect should be deleted. Carpimaps (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - search results I got on my end affirm Red-tailed hawk's findings. Seems to be a common abbreviation. If kept, should be tagged as {{r from abbreviation}} (or perhaps {{r from short name}}) to avoid future confusion for editors like this. – Scyrme (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_20&oldid=1156055007"