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.
Article With those sources, it actually seems notable, having an article "They skipped it" seems justified. And maybe there are conspiracy theories that could be discussed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per comments on the similar "Nu variant" rfd discussion, there is no Xi variant of SARS-CoV-2, and the phrase "Xi variant" does not indicate the searcher is looking for anything related to covid. Having a『Xi variant → SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant』redirect also gives unnecessary fodder to conspiracy theorists who could misinterpret "Xi" as a last name rather than a Greek letter, something that isn't in Wikipedia's interest. BugGhost🪲👻13:47, 7 June 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 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.
This redirect should be deleted. It was created by user:Matthiaspaul in June 2020 to point at a section heading which does not exist now and never did exist in the past. The article Vernier scale does not explain anywhere what "nonius connector" means. The only page linking to this redirect is the see also section of Nonius (device), which is more relevant than anything currently at Vernier scale but also does not explain what "nonius connector" means. This redirect, beyond being entirely unhelpful, is actively confusing to readers, and it should be deleted to turn the link nonius connector red, in case someone who knows what this is and cares about it will see that an article is needed. –jacobolus(t)01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention in the article. It is actively confusing since Nonius connector doesn't apppear to be the one that is described in the article. A google search suggests it is related to both articles, since there is no mention is either, it should be deleted. Catalk to me!09:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and write something about it. As Ca pointed out, a Nonius connector is related to both articles and we currently don't have any description of it in either of them. That's bad, because as an encyclopedia it is obvious that we should have it covered. That's why I parked an anchor for it and a link in the Vernier scale article (which looked like the most closely related topic back then) to define a location where editors could start collecting contents about it. At least, the redirect allows to link to the topic already and it enables reverse lookup, that is, it is building infrastructure and creating a momentum for future contents to accumulate. That's not confusing at all. Eventually, the accumulated contents should be moved into a dedicated article, but I don't know enough about it to start it myself.
Trying to use red links to encourage users to write an article about something is a long failed concept (it worked in the beginnings of this project, but not now, as most mainstream and easy topics are at least rudimentarily covered and we have to add the more special topics) because it requires someone to come along who knows a lot about a topic already, and has the time and dedication to research it further and write an article about it, find sources, etc. This is much more unlikely to happen than just adding some small bit of information about a topic the particular editor happens to know already. In particular red links "created" by deletion almost always (except for mainstream topics) means that we will never again have a topic covered, because deletion discussions draw away contributors. It leaves a scar, basically it is a lost opportunity, a failure in our goal to create a comprehensive encyclopedia for everyone covering the knowledge of the world, past and present. What works much better is to redirect missing topics to articles most closely related for bits of information to accumulate there over time until enough stuff has accumulated to split it out into a dedicated article. And this is what should happen here as well.
If you can't make a stub about it at this moment in time then it should stay as a red link. Ignoring your rant, a stub is better than a redirect that serves no purpose. – The Grid (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term cannot be found in Google Scholar or Google Books. Search in Google returns mostly information about some mounting hardware for suspended ceilings. Although the word "vernier" is used for ceiling applications, too, this meaning has nothing to do with the vernier scale. The redirect is incredibly confusing. --Викидим (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have meanwhile added a small section about Nonius connectors to the target article. There's much more to it. Feel free to flesh it out further or add other applications so that it can become an article on its own in the future. The redirect deletion discussion, however, is bogus now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition is deeply problematic and I'm really considering just reverting. WP:UGC says "a wikilink is not a reliable source". This also applies to dewiki. You can't just cite add unsourced claims to an article and then consider the matter closed. Nickps (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After checking some LLMs (since 'nonius connector' isn't recorded in dictionaries) it seems Nonius is used instead of Vernier in some languages (e.g. German). For example Google translates the article de:Noniusverbinder with the title "Vernier connector". Such a thing does exist, for example part 101646 here is listed as "Nonius-Verbinder" in German and "Vernier connector" in English. Since the correct target vernier connector doesn't exist, it can be deleted. Or, if matthiaspaul ninja-edits a new article into existence, it can be retargeted, but I didn't see sufficient material even on vernier connectors to establish notability. There is this patent but it is just an autotranslation of the German. Even the German wiki article is unsourced, and similarly I couldn't find any German sources besides part catalogues. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:52, 6 June 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 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 June 17#Science Update
