Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 17#Wikipedia:WHITELOCK
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 17|November 17]]=
==AYX (language)==
==Watersportsgate==
: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
- {{no redirect|1 = Watersportsgate }} → :Trump–Russia dossier#Kompromat and blackmail: Trump (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watersportsgate&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-10-02&end=2018-10-31&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Watersportsgate stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Watersportsgate|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Watersportsgate closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Watersportsgate|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Watersportsgate closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Watersportsgate|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Watersportsgate closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Novel or obscure synonym (WP:RFD#DELETE 8). Cute, but still. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. The name was used in headlines in January 2017 by [https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/donald-trump-russian-prostitute-dirty-9600648 The Mirror], [https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/752946/donald-trump-russia-watersportsgate-explained-golden-shower-scandal-claims The Express], [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/what-is-watersportsgate_uk_5875e90de4b033e31daaed5b Huffington Post] and [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2585055/watersportsgate-donald-trump-moscow-hotel-prostitutes/ The Sun], amongst others, so this is neither novel (in the sense of recent) or "very obscure", as the guideline suggests. As far as I can tell it is seldom used to refer to anything other than the current target, so there's no risk of causing confusion, and the number of news reports using the name suggests this is a similar case to the Attorneygate example mentioned in WP:RNEUTRAL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- :The big difference here is that Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is a descriptive title unlikely to be directly searched by users. "Attorneygate" is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, even if it's not suitable for the actual title. By contrast, "Trump–Russia dossier" is itself a plausible search term, as are redirects such as {{no redirect|Trump dossier}} and {{no redirect|Steele dossier}}. "Watersportsgate", though a clever journalistic joke, is not commonly used as a name for the dossier. I can admit this isn't nothing—perhaps a user has just seen one of those articles and searches the term here, not knowing it isn't in wider usage. But this isn't a simple WP:RNEUTRAL case like "Attorneygate". --BDD (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The term is not mentioned at the target so the connection is not clear unless one does additional research. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix. I think the appropriate path here would be to get consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier to include this term before recreating the redirect. I have no particular opinion on the WP:RNEUTRAL/"novel or obscure" issue; I'll just note that there are sources using this term, but many of them are disallowed by WP:RSP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- In terms of redirects, the reliability of sources isn't a principle importance - the key thing is whether readers will be using this term to find the article. The presence of this term in sources is a strong indicator that this is true. I don't think it is key that the term is mentioned in the article, as it's not ambiguous and so nearly everyone using it will know that it related to a specific incident related to Donald Trump (if not necessarily this one). Even if it is felt necessary to include the term in the article, all it needs is a sentence like "...referred to as "watersportsgate" by some media outliets." even notoriously extremely unreliable sources can be used to verify statements about what that source said. Ultimately this is a useful search term that is neither novel nor obscure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:17, 17 November 2018 (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.