Talk:Taylor Swift's boyfriend

Recreated
Courtesy pinging all participants in the previous RfD:

I have restored this and Taylor Swift boyfriend after they were deleted at RfD, as redirects to the article subsection where we discuss Taylor Swift's dating life (rather than as redirects to her current boyfriend). I'm invoking WP:IAR: these titles are clearly useful as navigation aids and we have relevant information on the specific topic. However, there was consensus for their deletion and so I'm inviting all participants to offer feedback if they disagree. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The RfD was about a different target, and no one proposed this target, so I don't see any need for invoking IAR in the first place. This is a distinct redirect, entitled to its own day at RfD if someone chooses. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 18:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well then I invoke IAR in my prior invocation of IAR. I did suggest retargeting but not to this target specifically, and I also saw the discussion as regarding the former target, but there was a consensus to delete and more discussion is better than less, I think. Especially with redirects that don't get much attention in the first place. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I often think we spend too much time at RfD debating a potential alternate target when everyone agrees the current one sucks, when this approach of delete+recreate is entirely within policy, and avoids spending editor-hours on a debate that no one might have seen fit to have otherwise. I don't really close RfDs anymore, but when I was, I had gotten into the habit of sometimes closing as "consensus to delete with current target; no prejudice against creation with new target". -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently IMO redirect target is good. Even if in the future Taylor gets other notable boyfriends, no need to change the target, because can have many of them, surely covered in "Dating life". And surely we will not create a disambig page if there will be multitudes of them :-). - Altenmann >talk 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The terrifying question is, would Dating life of Taylor Swift be a valid split? As a matter of policy/guideline I'd say yes, but in practice it'd probably be a bad idea. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 19:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, besides Public image of Taylor Swift (this target) we already also have cultural impact, political impact, a whole article just about the impact of the Eras tour, a separate article on her fans, two articles about her houses, and one about her cat, so it's probably not that far-fetched. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It ain't eligible for WP:G4, so ... IDC. Steel1943  (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's another entity altogether so if someone has issues with it then they should make their own RfD. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)