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 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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.
For the first time I think at RfD... I'm at a complete and total loss of words. I have, no idea, about any of this history. But it's certainly wrong. Utopes(talk / cont) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word gobshite refers to a person who talks shite (speaks nonsense or is a fool), not to verbosity or (necessarily) a verbose person. I would delete, or perhaps as an alternative retargettoShite, which is a DAB pointing to Shit among other things. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was mainly looking at the... interesting history behind this title, and its past and former targets. 😅 Utopes(talk / cont) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Okmrman. Don't read too much into the history, WP:POINT is pretty much written about the editor who picked the current target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Okmrman; don't keep it at its current gobshite target. Queen of ♡ | speak 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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.
Despite the history of an article being at this title, this search term is very much implausible. Delete and salt so we can finally get rid of it. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the term may be implausible for a de novo search, the article and its controversy is mentioned throughout the Internet, e.g., Reddit here. As I mentioned on my talk page: Those who come to the redirect for 'bad' reasons get the real article with its terse, more carefully curated content... just like those who follow an old link would. I'm struggling to think of a policy-based reason for deletion. I get that a lot of people have strong feelings about this... but I don't. We do not need to break redirects to Right Great Wrongs. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don’t see how it’s implausible, seeing as the article from which it is derived was quite popular. Also I'd say that the use of the phrase in other language Wikipedias and the usage of the phrase in the media, which was no doubt spurred by the existence of the former article, necessitates this redirect.
Delete (no salt), due to no mention, or discussion, or any indication on why this question [Where is Kate?] exists and targets the page. Saying "conspiracy theories arose" is not enough. If kept, (which should only be done if a mention gets added), probably keep the title protected, and/or restore the previous history, and/or keep talk page unredirected? If it's going to exist on Wikipedia, mind as well maintain the storied background for archival purposes, although I'm not super bothered either way re: its inclusion to page history. If the history is specifically G10 speedy deletable, then maybe keep the history deleted, but the fact that there were a good chunk of RSs and a lot of !keepers at the AfD makes it seem the history could at the very least be useful to be aware of, especially as none of the past AfDs are linked at the redirect's talk page or any indication of its past life at all, beyond the first edit summary (as I would have expected for an AfD-recreated redirect). Utopes(talk / cont) 05:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs were mentioned at the talk page of the now-redirect, but have since been removed by Alalch_E., whom I've pinged to explain his reasoning which I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the remark that the redirect's talk page is the wrong page for the Old XfD was a not fully though out / poorly phrased way to say that if it's useful to redirect the redirect's talk page, it doesn't have to be kept just because of the Old XfD template about AfDs which did not determine the fate of the redirect as a redirect anyway. I believed that it's useful to keep that talk page redirected because discussions about the subject matter that had been covered under the title of "Where is Kate?" belong at the target article's talk page where they can get proper visibility, and I believed that the redirect's talk page might attract forum-like commentary, etc. —Alalch E. 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection of the talk page is not maintainable because the outcome of this RfD will need to be recorded on it, so I will self-revert. —Alalch E. 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silly nomination, sorry.—Alalch E. 11:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious search term, the phrase is used in sources, and many on Wikipedia know about the deleted article. While the phrase is not verbatim at the target, the target exactly matches, but encyclopedicly, the topic that the phrase refers to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at what's in the Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. We serve knowledge to people who look for it using problematic terms too. We don't say to them "bad reader with bad thoughts, we will not serve you the article". No, we will serve him the article so he can get educated and so he can get to see how a topic is treated when it is treated encyclopedically. —Alalch E. 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong keep as a highly likely search term evidenced by a Google search of "Where is Kate?" having over a million hits; the first several pages are exclusively devoted to Princess Catherine's health and related absence from public events. FrankAnchor 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously - "Where is Kate?" provably refers to the media sensationalism surrounding the event that is now properly covered at the target section. When readers come to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, this is where they will find it. The topic drew nearly 15,000 daily pageviews at its height, and since being recreated as a redirect it's pulling a couple hundred a day. One's opinion of the monarchy is not a reason to delete a redirect that is plainly serving a useful purpose to readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to the high profile nature of this article when it existed and the attention the 3 AfD's attracted, it is helpful to keep this around, at least for now. StreetcarEnjoyer(talk) 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question? What was the original article (that is now deleted) about? I would be inclined to delete because the title is more appropriate to disambiguate between articles (if any) about missing persons named Kate. Bwrs (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The former article was widely discussed on reddit and other forums, and cited in the media, e.g. [1] which tells us The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" [...] (link in the original). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I voted twice to delete and merge the article. That being said, the phrase is not implausible. Keeping the redirect will also funnel people to the proper location with encyclopedic coverage. Please, can we drop it and move on? TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 06:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No character called Kobold at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 06:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of a character called Dan Keating at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 06:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this related word at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. I have to guess this has been unmentioned at the target for at least 15 years, maybe its entire redirect lifetime. Has always been a redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked. Redirect was created on April 22, 2006-- and on that day, "Jailarity" was defined under "Farkisms and cliches". At this point in time, the section was a long list of examples of various "farkisms", instead of a few paragraphs discussing the concept of a "farkism" in general. The last revision to have this "list" version of the section was here, before it was stricken as unencyclopedic-- it would then be readded a couple of times and immediately re-removed, before this revision added the section that would be molded into what we have today.
"Jailarity", in summary, was defined in a section that was removed for being unencyclopedic and replaced with a section that is far more encyclopedic, but doesn't define or even mention this term. Delete.𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 06:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When this redirect was created, it pointed to RA2 Multiple Unit, which is the model that ŽS series 711 (manufacturer's designation: DP-S) is derived from. An anonymous user later disputed the redirect, pointing out RA-2 and DP-S are two different series. User Malcolmxl5 then made the redirect point to ŽS series 812, which is absolute nonsense since ŽS 812 and ŽS 711 have nothing in common besides operating on same routes. As the English wiki does not have a page about ŽS series 711 or DP-S Multiple Unit, I propose this redirect be deleted. Upwinxp (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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. ✗plicit 12:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a list like this is potentially interesting to non-editors, more so than many pages in the Wikipedia namespace, as well as editors. And isn't ambiguous per above. Skynxnex (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. A useful redirect. I came across this redirect discussion by using it myself. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 retargettoEase. Jay 💬 07:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Easing" not mentioned at target, many possibilities for this term, including at Ease and the many many other articles that also use "ease" as a term or title. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Ease: better target, since they're different forms of the same verb. DrowssapSMM 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoEase as better target per nom. --Lenticel(talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 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 💬 07:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely search term; only usecase was for the creator to link it on their user page as their PhD, and was eventually blocked for WP:PAID editing. I don't foresee this getting any further use, convoluted name and no definite target it seems. Utopes(talk / cont) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor
