to Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America)#Construction 2. Although there are potentially several Swaminarayan-related controversies, there is only one of 2021, so the redirects are so far unambiguos. There is less clarity on whether the redirects are plausible, but from the participants' comments (including some by those recommending deletion), it appears that the redirects will likely aid in reader searches. This closure should be taken as provisional, so the redirects can be nominated again at any time if any new evidence comes up. – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The relevant content at the target was contested and removed shortly after this redirect was created. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep the content or not, but for as long as the content is not present, this redirect should not exist. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- DeleteThe redirects don’t link to an article with a similar title, so it doesn’t make sense to keep them. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget to Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America)#Construction 2. Jay (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Retarget per Jay. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Hi all, Whenever I search for Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy, I get results relating to the Akshardham Temple Attack, which occurred in 2002. These redirect pages are confusing and makes the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- :If you are referring to an external search engine like Google, then we can't fix Google through Wikipedia. Someone looking for the temple attack will search for "attack" and not "controversy". Jay (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- ::Hi Jay, yes, I am referring to an external search engine. That is an interesting essay, but my comment is not related to the search panel on Google. I am not proposing to fix Google, but this is an opportunity to decrease the American-focused bias on Wikipedia. The issue, which Google is merely a tool to demonstrate, is that Swaminarayan Akshardham and controversy appears regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack in Gandhinagar, India. To illustrate, the lead of the Akshardham Temple attack article, about Swaminarayan Akshardham in Gandhinagar provides some context for that controversy, "In May 2014, a Supreme Court of India bench acquitted all the six prisoners of all charges and pulled up the Gujarat Police for shoddy investigation in the case." Someone looking for the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack will search for attack, but it is reasonable to think that someone searching for information regarding the subsequent legal actions would search for controversy. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- :::There is no mention of the word controversy in the Akshardham Temple attack article. Nor is there a mention of controversy in the North America article, nor in the New Delhi article although the Yamuna river bank environment clearance is popular with Google as a controversy. I understand your point now, but "Creating bias with search results using words in the redirect's title" is not a reason to Delete. WP:RFD#D1 comes close but is not applicable here. Jay (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete These pages do not contain useful page history that could be kept to comply with a page merger. It makes sense to delete the pages. Harshmellow717 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete because the redirect is not useful.
:I agree with Skubydoo about the potential confusion but for different reasons: when I search Wikipedia using terms used in the titles of the redirect pages, the first result is the Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America) article. The proposed redirect to the same page would add an unnecessary extra step for users searching for information about the events in 2021 (and it could take users looking for information from 2002 to the wrong page). Hexcodes (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::If searching for "2021 Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy" returns the first result as the North America article, then isn't our search results as expected? Users looking for the information from 2002 will not have search keywords with "2021" in it. Jay (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
:::Jay, I agree that the results are as expected. But I think that reflects the redundancy of the redirect. Additionally, users who know details like the years of the events would know enough to be able to find the relevant articles on their own. The labor lawsuit was filed in 2021, but--as I understand it--the allegations are for over a longer period of time, so I didn't include "2021" in my search terms when I searched Wikipedia. Hexcodes (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
::::Without including the year, when I search with "Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy", I get Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Delhi) as the first result. Are you saying you are getting the North America article? Jay (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::I am searching "Swaminarayan Akshardham labor" and getting the North America article. I tested the external search engine method Skubydoo mentioned, and it seems that "controversy" is not currently being used to describe the allegations presented by the NYTimes in any news outlets. Hexcodes (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I think one of the main reasons for confusion is that the term “controversy” is not a term that is being used in the reporting on the 2021 allegations. These redirects fail to aid a user who is searching on Wikipedia.Golfer1223 (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural note. The above delete !votes are being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- As we near this becoming close-eligible, I would strongly encourage any would-be closer to hold off until the SPI is resolved. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:12, 2 June 2021 (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.
