Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2020.

Interstate 425[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21#Interstate 425

Molderland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Molderland

Petrus Schroderus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Petrus Schroderus

CCP Virus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CCP Virus is the terminology used by The Epoch Times (RSP entry). A WP:DEPRECATED source that is consistently disseminating misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (e.g. conspiracy theories and hoaxes already proven fake). Wikipedia should not be amplifying hoaxes by including them in places that do not have critical comment. See coverage at The Epoch Times. MarioGom (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But note that a lot of the "CCP Virus" instances revolve around stories or videos published initially by The Epoch Times. So, yes, as many hoaxes and misinformation pieces, they find echo in several places. In any case, the usage of the term is still problematic even if social media users or some questionable sources gradually adopted it. --MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Before this it was called the "Wuhan virus" by Chinese news outlets and people in some Chinese demographics still refer to it as such and it's become WP:COMMONNAME among them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. "Wuhan virus", while arguably inappropriate, was largely used by sources in many countries and languages. "CCP virus" doesn't seem WP:COMMONNAME and it is actually linked to some of the conspiracy theories that we document at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. If delete is not found appropriate (I think it is), then I would suggest retarget to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. For similar reasons that we redirect Fake ABC News to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Organizations and not to ABC News. --MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a common name and is rarely used elsewhere. --Efly (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Referred to in some Chinese circles as such. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CCP Virus, China Virus, Wuhan Virus have all been used by people, news. I came here because of a youtube ad that used CCP Virus. If its propaganda then the argument should be that if someone hears CCP Virus and wonders what it is, Wikipedia should redirect them to correct page (with correct terminology) and not leave them wondering. Do you really want them to search/find only the propaganda websites that use it?. -EatingFudge (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 'Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Chinese biological weapon' or delete. Strongly believe this must not be kept as is. The term is produced almost exclusively among conspiracy theorists, and Wikipedia should not legitimise something that has no reliable sourcing whatsoever by keeping a redirect to it like this. At the very least it should be a disambig with the misinformation link at the top. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term is never used apart from hoaxes and propaganda. Leaving the page gives it legitimacy and endorsement. It's also attracting vandals who add politically motivated conspiracies and general vandalism. Signvisas (let's talk!) 13:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are not required to be neutral. feminist #WearAMask😷 11:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not opposed to retargetting this to a potentially more relevant article. It's just that neutrality is not a reason to delete a redirect. feminist #WearAMask😷 16:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:56, 28 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 18:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This name is in common use, as I have seen it in print and on television in the last 24 hours. It is a POV name, but we should enable our readers to find out what it really means easily by having a redirect. Whether the name is explained in the article is a different issue, and I do not think it is required for all redirects. A possible alternative destination is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2‎. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Terminology as per Naddruf above. It is not the official name of the virus, and it says so in this article, WHO has advised against using locations in disease and virus names from 2015. The fact that there is this much discussion on this term shows that it's a controversial term and should be redirected to a neutral PoV of the virus' terminology. Valkyrino (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Valkyrino. --Soumyabrata talk contribs subpages 09:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 21:28, 12 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.

Mark Nielsen (producer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 04:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From his IMDb entry, I doubt whether he is notable. I am however certain that a redirect to a video short which he produced and which does no more than mention his name is less than useful. Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update by nom. He won an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature for Toy Story 4. I still think that readers would be better served by a redlink than a redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:30, 12 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.

Gamont[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 04:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted, waiting the proper article to be written. Deals about a microbiology topic (see pages linking to it). Weirdly links to a space opera article, with no records of the word in the target article. Fraf (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Apicomplexa (1st choice) or delete to encourage article creation (2nd choice). This would be a more feasible option than to redirect here, as the planet Gamont (which is probably what this redirect refers to in the context of the Dune franchise) doesn't seem to be prominent from what we see on its page on the Dune Wiki, and the topic seems to have more widespread usage in microbiology (as the nom says). Regards, SONIC678 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The planet is anecdotal in the Dune series. I created this redirect in 2007, and it is clearly unnecessary now for that franchise. The parasite is clearly the primary topic here (and I believe this redirect predated any parasite-related links). Thanks!— TAnthonyTalk 18:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:29, 12 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.

NBA Horse Challenge[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#NBA Horse Challenge

High Exit-Only Turnstile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unused/unneeded. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed. This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does say (although unsourced) "There are two types of full height turnstiles, High Entrance/Exit Turnstile (HEET) and Exit-Only", so I can infer the 2nd type is fully a High Exit-Only Turnstile. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:44, 28 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 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:27, 12 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.

Smurf communism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to The Smurfs#Sociological discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of communism at target article. The Smurfs and communism was originally deleted and when the recreated article was nominated for AfD, it was moved to Smurf communism. Delete unless a justification can be proven OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:26, 12 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.

Male pornography[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Pornography. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Pornography. These redirects are both plausible search terms, in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to pornography per CycloneYoris. Narky Blert (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a disambiguation page This may refer to Women's pornography, Gay pornography, or just Pornography in general. So offer a choice on a disambiguation page. -- SamuelWantman 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Sam. feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 09:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to pornography as {{R from subtopic}} or delete due to lack of specific content. A disambiguation would not work here, none of the other terms suggested "may refer to" male pornography. Gay pornography is simply not equivalent—the only connection is that it features men, but so does several other genres. "Women's pornography" is produced by and targets women, but that doesn't necessarily mean the pornography is "male". -- Tavix (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CycloneYoris. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 13:38, 22 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.

Ancient Ukraine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to History of Ukraine. signed, Rosguill talk 03:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KIENGIR nominated incorrectly: Sock created page, the validity is disputable, possible POV issue.
Additional coment: Kievan Rus' is a loose federation, not specifically "ancient Ukraine". CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of Ukraine - More likely to be searched for instead of Kievan Rus. Especially when people are looking for ancient Ukraine, not just one period in history. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of Ukraine per Koridas. Kievan Rus' extended well beyond Ukraine, and its period was well after what most people call "ancient" (which I'd place at no later than 500 AD at the outside). Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 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.

1990 Polish local elections[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#1990 Polish local elections

RAW World Champion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 03:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE Universal Championship is currently defended on Smackdown. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could just as easily be a description of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) which was in storyline originally created as a RAW exclusive championship from Sept. 2 2002 to June 30th 2005 after Brock Lesner refused to wrestle on RAW. In fact a quick check shows that the difference in time between the two belts moving to Smackdown was about 6 months.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 15:29, 12 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.

Obamagate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. Of the proposed redirect targets, this is the only one that actually mentions the term. If that changes, this issue can be revisited. signed, Rosguill talk 03:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Obamagate does not exist, the target article does not mention this term, and Wikipedia should not prop up or legitimize nutty QAnon conspiracy theories. That is Mr. Trump's job, not ours. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JDDJS: Thanks for alerting me. You'll see that I changed the redirect target several days ago based on the rest of this thread. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, but no-one seems to have yet been motivated to write a main article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can anyone write an article when we don't even know what it would be about? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirects are cheap and harmless. This is a plausible search term and its absence would make more of a political statement than its presence, although that could be the entire point of nominating this redirect for deletion. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree, and there is enough discussion of it that there is (unfortunately) notability. Let the investigative reporting turn up further details, then a main page may be needed. - Peter Ellis - Talk 00:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I also agree that there should be a redirect. I arrived here because I searched for 'Obamagate' having heard the US President refer to it and state that it can be read about in all newspapers (except the Washington Post). I have noticed that some news outlets have now started to run articles explaining what Obamagate is or might be. Constantine (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence provided for the term and while it does not redirect to the same article as it did back then this should be deleted per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Obamagate.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't even know what "Obamagate" is supposed to refer to.[1] It could mean something else, not Spygate, and therefore be mistargeted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a good point since at one point this redirected to what is now known as Trump Tower wiretapping allegations before it was deleted a few years back. In fact outside of the Donald Trump series template the original article this redirected to doesn’t even mention the current target.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed thoughts, but weak oppose deletion I think this redirect should continue to lead somewhere, but I don't know where. My limited exposure to the word "Obamagate" makes me think that Spygate isn't the best target article, but it's still very unclear to me what it's actually meant to refer to. The majority of news articles I'm seeing are specifically about Trump's inability to explain what the term means. I don't understand what "Obamagate" is, but I think the term is at least receiving enough coverage that readers should be able to find relevant well-sourced information if they type the term into the search bar. If it redirects the user to an explanation about how it's one of Trump's neologisms or conspiracy theories, that's fine by me. If it redirects the user to a well-sourced overview of what the term alleges Obama may or may not have done, that's fine by me as well. I agree with Koavf and the anonymous IP editor that redirects are cheap and that even nonsensical made-up scandals warrant redirects because they're plausible search terms.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose redirect. The Spygate article says that it's about Trump's conspiracy theory "that the Obama administration had placed a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign for political purposes." Obamagate doesn't refer specifically (and perhaps not at all) to that particular bit of Trump mendacity. According to this article, "Not even Trump appears to know what exactly Obamagate is," but it appears to relate more to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I think "Obamagate" is notable enough to merit its own article. The unfortunate truth is that Trump, because he's President of the United States, has an unmatched "bully pulpit" for spouting pure bullshit and thereby rendering it notable. A wikilink to the Spygate article would be appropriate, though. JamesMLane t c 23:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - Per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This obscure neologism used as a redirect to Spygate (conspiracy theory) should be deleted per WP:R#DELETE 2, 3, 5, and 8. I generally disagree that it should be redirected somewhere as we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not the Trumpian version of Urban Dictionary. However, if we had to keep this redirect, the most appropriate target would probably be Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. - MrX 🖋 02:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't promulgate propaganda but we report propaganda if it's notable. The article And you are lynching Negroes is distinct from all the articles that report the facts about lynching; that one reports the facts about the USSR's propaganda about lynching. Of course, lynching was real, but our Death panels and Stab-in-the-back myth articles report on notable bits of propaganda that were false. JamesMLane t c 02:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not our job to spread idiotic conspiracy theory twitter hashtags. Volunteer Marek 04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what's being said by POTUS, it's pretty much the Spygate controversy, rebooted in 2020 with a "dirty cop" claim instead of a "spy". If you delete it without salting, it will almost certainly be recreated. If you salt, editors will include "Obamagate" ion the Spygate article and articles will link to there. Deleting is a bad idea since it's counterproductive, doing nothing and letting the Wikipedia community run its course seems appropriate. Throwawayforcourtesydiscussion (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)— Throwawayforcourtesydiscussion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - even Trump doesn't seem to know what conspiracy he's trying to invent here. It isn't our job to try to make sense of this. Guettarda (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't making sense of it. The issue is whether the term, be it sensible or nonsense, is notable. I just did a Google search for "Obamagate" and got 2.2 million hits (up from, IIRC, 1.6 million just a day or two ago). Having the article wouldn't constitute an endorsement. In fact, the article, along with reporting statements by Trump and his supporters, should also report the notable opinion, per the link I posted above, that, as you say, even Trump is flailing around to try to find some specific accusation. JamesMLane t c 14:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article could - indeed, should - include a sourced list of all the things he's claimed it is, expandable with whatever he may claim in future. Narky Blert (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I write this, this search term has gotten almost 10,000 hits in two days. So, I don't think it is wise to just delete it, because people will just come looking for it and sooner or later want to create it again. Perhaps there is some editing or subsection creation we could do at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, that references reliable sources (Slate, New York Magazine, The Independent) that explain that Trump made reference to this term in a recent press conference, but refused to elaborate on its meaning? I am certainly open to discussion; Thanks to all for your contributions to WP. KConWiki (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been considerable coverage of this term, much of which has been posted above. See also [2] which also emphasises (like the above sources) that it's not known what the term actually refers to. The term was not apparently coined by Trump. Its earliest uses appear to be in reference to the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, ascribed to unnamed supporters of Trump (see [3]). This renders the current redirect to Spygate invalid. On the other hand, I think it's likely that Trump was thinking of the Spygate theory when he used the term, but we cannot base a decision on attempted mindreading of the president. Best solution, eventually, will be to have a page specifically for conspiracy theories supported by Donald Trump, redirect Obamagate to there, and give it a section outlining his promotion of this theory along with the fact that nobody seems to know what it is. For now, I think redirecting to Spygate is the best option. It certainly shouldn't be deleted when it's receiving so much coverage. It's definitely notable.Wikiditm (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump. I think it could be made a subsection. Afvalbak (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a plausible approach, but my concern is that "List of" articles are usually just lists. In this instance, the subsection would presumably be along the lines of "Trump has used the term 'Obamagate' to allude vaguely to some sort of improper conduct by his predecessor, but has not specified exactly what it was, although he used the term in the context of the prosecution of Michael Flynn." That would work unless it leads to an edit war in which people repeatedly remove the subsection on the grounds that it's not proper for a "List of" article. Are you confident that it would stay? JamesMLane t c 01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no clear redirect, not until/unless Trump decides to define this... ɱ (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no specific information to form a redirect. It is a fad term designed to obfuscate.  --Bejnar (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC. Viewing a sample of the 2.2. million Google hits makes it clear that the term "Obamagate" has been applied, both while he was president and since, to pretty much anything President Obama did that someone didn't like. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is utter fucking nonsense. Also take a look at this Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The truth (or lack thereof) of an article's subject matter has no relevance to whether or not the article/redirect is notable. You wouldn't suggest getting rid of the alchemy page, would you? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a short article Obamagate is in the news. Somebody hearing the term may very likely come here to understand what the term means. So a brief, well sourced NPOV article that talks about Trump's and the right-wing press' conspiracy theories would be the best way to deal with it. See also can link to the other places mentioned as redirect targets. -- SamuelWantman 02:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless good cites can be found that say "Obamagate" = "Spygate", Wikipedia should not be deciding this. If Trump refuses to explain what is meant by it, then all that Wikipedia should be doing, if it is determined that it is notable, is creating an article that effectively says; "Term used by Trump, unknown meaning". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Nobody actually has a clue what this scandal is supposed to be, because it's made-up drivel. But people are Googling for it. Our least-bad option is a redirect to the most pertinent article we have. XOR'easter (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trump released an IGTV video that does gove more insight into what "Obamagate" refers to, now just to wait for secondary reliable sources to write about it. Optimally we'd have a full article about this topic, being a newly-invented strategy of Trump (very new, see Praxidicae's links above to google trends) that is likely going to receive much more than the already significant coverage it has now. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This video is the nail in the coffin for any current redirects. Obamagate definitely does not refer to Spygate, nor does it refer to Trump Tower wiretapping allegations or indeed anything on the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump.Wikiditm (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is what I suggest because otherwise it makes too much of a political statement and accusations of Wikipedia bias if you just delete GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump seems like a good choice. Having a term exist in the Wikipedia dopes not lend it credibility, it is only an aid to get the reader to information they may be looking for. Zaathras (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect but change target. It is clear by now that whatever Trump is talking about, it has nothing to do with Spygate, which was an allegation that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. This new Obamagate seems to have something to do with the investigation into Mike Flynn. I would suggest a redirect to List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump but as pointed out that is just a list, with no details. And this is not worth a separate article. Maybe we could make it a paragraph at some other page and redirect it there? I'll look into that possibility. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really do need something for this since so many people are looking for it. In a search I could find no existing article that this fits into, that this redirect could target. And I see that List article may be merged into Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. So I propose a redirect to the Veracity article, where we add a short, one-paragraph section and redirect to #Obamagate. I have prepared such a paragraph and will add it there if people think this is a good approach. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this proposal, maybe there could even be a generalized section on the variety of ill-defined or unverifiable things he's claimed.--Pharos (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MelanieN - see WaPo so it's not something we can ignore. It's actually applicable to WP:RECENTISM aka breaking news but something we cannot ignore because of the coverage - so it needs to be presented with strict compliance to NPOV so it is not blown out of proportion as what happened to many of the Trump articles as new revelations were made public. Atsme Talk 📧 23:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what I am proposing to add to that article, I have suggested wording at Talk:Veracity of statements by Donald Trump to see if people are agreeable to having it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 16 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.

Prestige class[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Prestige class

Twelve schoos and a scho[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These redirects seem to get fewer pageviews on average than their targets and/or any correctly spelled counterparts...I'm wondering how plausible "schoo" is in the context of this misspelling. Oh, and there's a similar "scho" as well. Regards, SONIC678 06:03, 12 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.

Wuhanvirus, Wuhan virus, etc.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There may be additional redirects similar to those listed above. "Wuhan virus" is used informally in various contexts to refer to SARS-CoV-2. The issue is that "Wuhanvirus" is a recently recognized genus of viruses. It belongs to the family Autographiviridae, which has an article. Advice is sought on various ways or the proper way to address this. Another discussion about this is here. Velayinosu (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wuhan virus as a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and add hatnote {{redirect|Wuhan virus|the genus of viruses|Wuhanvirus}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Wuhan Virus to the nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The punctilious thing to do would be take advantage of the fact that each of the two variants is "correct" for only one of the uses and so redirect Wuhan virus to the SARS-CoV-2 article, and Wuhanvirus to Autographiviridae. But the difference between the two terms is so small, that a hatnote would then be needed on both targets, and I don't like the idea of that: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, one of wikipedia's most popular articles, already has a lengthy and unavoidable hatnote and it would go over the top if another hatnote were added for such an extremely obscure and unrelated virus. On the other hand, we can't redirect Wuhan virus to Autographiviridae as this variant is apparently only ever used to refer to the SARS virus. An outcome that avoids these situations is to create a disambiguation page: it's standard practice for dab pages to disambiguate related terms, and the redirects aren't used that much so there isn't a big group of readers that we'll be doing a disservice to by intervening in their navigational path with a small dab page. I've drafted one below the redirect at Wuhan virus. – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: You should remember that Wikipedia is not a paper. Anyway, changing my !vote. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we're not constrained for the size of our pages, but that doesn't exempt us from considering potential clutter at the top of articles: hatnotes should generally be as few as possible and as concise as practicable (WP:1HAT). Also, the term "Wuhan virus" is loaded so it's best to avoid giving it prominence via a mention at the top of the article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Wuhanfala. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Seems like the sensible decision. Zoozaz1 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - When in doubt on something like this, disambiguate and make use of hatnotes as appropriate. We should also think of NPOV verbiage on the disambig page to explain that while it certainly has widespread usage, it is also (as mentioned above) a loaded term. KConWiki (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Former Kill Paris redirects[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target nor anywhere else on the encyclopedia. Result of redirection of the former target, Kill Paris, to this target per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Flooded with them hundreds. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in Owsla, and I can't think of any reason why they should be. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 12 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.

Nugrape Twins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Nugrape Twins

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_12&oldid=1072177388"