Implausible redirect. This is an extremely uncommon spelling of Sefardi or Sephardi. No pages link here and no editing history. Four pageviews in the last year. Jprg1966(talk)22:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need redirects for every slang term referring to pedophiles and I doubt readers will use this as a search term when, unfortunately, most people are now familiar with the term "pedophile". It makes me wonder what other slang terms for this concept have been used for redirects. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or delete if this redirects anywhere it should be to Child sexual abuse as the term is not used to refer to a psychological disorder but to people who sexually abuse children (who may or may not be paedophiles). It's a theoretically plausible search term but as it was nominated here on the same day statistics for whether it is actually used do not exist so we cannot say whether it is useful in practice or not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Recentism - There have been numerous pandemics over time and also, the coronavirus pandemic is pretty much over, I'm pretty sure if you mention "The pandemic", a bunch of people would not think you're referring to COVID-19. Additionally, if someone wants to access information about the Coronavirus pandemic on Wikipedia, he/she will obviously not just search "the pandemic". This redirect is pointless in its current form, I would suggest a retarget to pandemic. Mondtaler (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while i know what makes this pandemic "the" as of writing this (hell, i apparently had that shit thrice in the first few months), there could very possibly be another worldwide pandemic that ends up being considered "the" before the 22st century. i'll say retarget to pandemic, if only due to precedent with other "the [article title]" redirects cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)18:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 10YEARTEST is about article content, and while there are theoretically many pandemics that could be referred to as "the pandemic" only one currently is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussion: Covid-19 is still the primary topic for this search term. That might change in the future, but unless and until it does the current target is the most helpful to readers using this search term now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or isn't likely to happen in the future is irrelevant. Whether it has or hasn't happened to other terms is also irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether there is or is not currently a primary topic for "The pandemic", and the evidence is that there is: 100% of hits on the first 5 pages of Google results, even when restricted to pages published in the last month, refer to Covid-19. When there is a primary topic for a search term we redirect readers to the article about that primary topic, regardless of how likely or otherwise it is that someone using the same search term at some future point will be looking for the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that is... also not how that works. keeping it as a redirect to one event would downplay previous events' notability and warrant a retarget every time something of the sort happens. if a topic is "currently primary", then what does that word even mean? cogsan(nag me)(stalk me)19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is primary if
It is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.; and/or
If it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
All the evidence presented points to covid-19 being not only "much more likely" than any other single topic but almost exclusively among things published since early 2020. As for long-term significance, it has at least equal long-term notability and educational value to any other event referred to as "the pandemic" (which at this point no other events are). As for retargetting, this is a wiki - it can, does and should change to reflect changes in the real world because that's the point of it. Topics get moved to and from the base title (primary topic) and redirects get updated to reflect real world changes in primary topic all the time without controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Pandemic, there's no primary topic when considering long-term significance. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is explicitly not determined from regurgitating Google results: simple web searches may be problematic due to limited sources, open interpretation, and personal search bias. --Tavix(talk)18:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any evidence that this is not the primary topic for people searching for this term now? I've tried, repeatedly and extensively and failed every time. If you find any evidence the to contrary then present it rather than just vaguely waving to a guideline that explicitly says searches "might" (not "are") problematic. Separately, it's pretty rich to say that the covid-19 pandemic is something without long-term significance. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this pandemic is significant, just probably not to a word with more than one big event associated with it
probably not to a word with more than one big event associated with it We're discussing "The pandemic" not "Pandemic", there is no evidence that anybody searching for "The pandemic" is looking for something other than Covid-19.
discussions about "the [article title]" redirects tend to just be retargeted to their the-deprived counterparts that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Where "The [article title]" redirects have a primary topic they redirect to that primary topic, where they don't they redirect to a dab page (or don't exist). Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've successfully demonstrated that the target article should not be at the title "Pandemic" and that there is no grounds on the basis of long term significance to redirect "Pandemic" to the Covid-19 article but that's not what this article is about. We're discussing where "The pandemic" should redirect, but nobody has provided any evidence that anybody is looking for any other topic at this title - let alone that Covid is not the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man, but to reiterate: I am arguing for "The Pandemic" to target "Pandemic" NOT for "COVID-19 pandemic" to be renamed "Pandemic". --Tavix(talk)14:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what you are arguing for but you've yet to provide any evidence to support "The Pandemic" having no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CRCS appears to be the only RCS presently covered on Wikipedia, so confusion is unlikely for now. When other types are covered with their own articles, such as intraocular RCS, RCS of the thyroid gland, RCS of the spleen, RCS of the bone, RCS of the lymph node, and so on, then this title, "Reticulum cell sarcoma", can become an overview article or a dab page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there02:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬14:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the two target articles are connected by hatnotes, which might end up being the best solution, but I believe it's less than ideal for the two redirects to have different targets. My main suggestion is to Disambiguate (that is, turn gay cake case into a DAB page), especially as it's possible that another lawsuit could arise from a similar situation. However, "gay cake case" is explicitly cited in the Lee v Ashers article but not in Masterpiece Cakeshop, and "gay cake" on its own doesn't immediately suggest that the article is about a lawsuit. My secondary suggestion is therefore to Delete gay cake only. Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Is there a primary target? Also notified of this discussion at the target talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬13:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dab and redirect per nom, Jeske, and Bensin. As common search terms, Lee has no more claim to the primary topic. This is the best balance of preserving and serving users with least astonishment. czar14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally going to WP:BOLDly retarget this to Let's Get Small as the album from the current target which this phrase is most associated, but then I remembered ... people looking up this phrase could reasonably be trying to find The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!#Premise where a version of the subject of the article Link (The Legend of Zelda) is notable for saying "Well, excuse me, princess!" and since Well excuse me princess redirects there. Seems like a case of "disambiguate" or "retarget" and I'm not sure which, even with the fact that this redirect is a partial match for the Link phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was thinking about nominating this one too, also while having "well excuse me princess" on my mind.
As the inclusion of the word "well" is never mentioned in any context preceding the title "Excuse Me" in the album, I'd prefer to delete this, but a retarget is better than a keep. Retargeting brings this title closer to its potential context (moreso than a general pass towards the person that presumably said the phrase), but without any mention of the "well" bit, there's no indication in the article that people would search for this instead of Excuse Me (the song on the album; the song, which does not appear on the Excuse Me disambiguation page). It does not seem necessary to target this title to Excuse Me either. Utopes(talk / cont)19:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dabify or add all redirects missing the word "princess" to "excuse me" per 50% of what steel said, but also per "well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me, princess"
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target and disambiguation talk pages. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬12:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dab. There are many ZSJs and we should disambiguate between them, none of which are the primary topic for the acronym. czar14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect has extensive history - not sure if RFD is the right place for this discussion? Might merit a procedural close and an AFD instead. -- asilvering (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Anarcho-primitivism#Adoption and practice. I had added citations for Kevin Tucker and Species Traitor to the discussed Green anarchism#Anarcho-primitivism section in 2021 because I did not think anarcho-primitivism would substantiate its own article. I've restored those citations in the suggested retarget location, where someone searching for the topic would expect to read about Carson and related periodicals. If there is more written on the topic, it can always split out in summary style. czar14:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]