Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2020.

The Gentlemen (upcoming film)[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since they films are no longer upcoming, these redirects become potentially misleading. Hog Farm (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes me wonder if we ought to have a speedy delete category for "Foo (upcoming baa)" titles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Eastern Economic Corridor Digital Innovation Zone[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These search terms are not currently mentioned at their targets. While it's plausible that these topics could be related, an internet search would suggest that the Eastern Economic zones are independently notable of the current redirect targets, and I would thus suggest deletion to encourage article creation. It is not clear to me whether the various Zones are independently notable of each other. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. These entities are more related to the EEC and less to the individual organisations which serve as the facilitators of the projects, and should be covered at the main Eastern Economic Corridor article. They're currently only linked to from a table in that article. Self-redirects aren't useful. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Loving J.[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Loving Joy[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the target. My top internet search results for this term are a line of vibrators. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Old Pukel land[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. In Middle-earth, the Pukels are a name for the Druedain and their sculptures, but "Old Pukel land" is not mentioned at that potential target, either. Hog Farm (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are far too many useless redirects related to Tolkien. No reason to have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gwathir[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Not to be confused with Gwaihir, the name of a Middle-earth eagle, this one is an obscure river. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

East Emnet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#East Emnet

Emyn Beraid[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned twice on the English Wikipedia, once as an outgoing link on at Outline of Middle-earth and a brief, unexplanatory at Gildor Inglorion. Not mentioned at the target page, and no clear retarget option. Hog Farm (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fault(geology)[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per current consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current consensus. Hog Farm (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GeoWriter (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: For the record, prior to me making this nomination, I noticed that the previous discussion stated that this redirect had pageviews. After reading that, I also noticed that this redirect had incoming links in the article namespace in WP:PIPE-d links. At this point, those links have bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary clutter, a pure typo. Of course it has had views, readers have been presented with two near-identical links in the searchbox. I also cite WP:UNHELPFUL. Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the appearance in the searchbox is a temporary artifact of this page NOT being a redirect while this nomination is active; while it was a redirect it did not appear in the searchbox unless typed exactly incorrectly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 13:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
discussion involving whether a rationale has been presented for deletion -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: In case you missed it, the rationale for deletion was presented as follows: Four years later, now that we have a precedence for deleting redirects such as this one ... delete per WP:RDAB.. You may disagree with the rationale, but your statement that there is none is blatantly incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be mistaken. That's a non sequitur that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a rationale for deletion were presented, then I could agree or disagree with it. But without a reason for deletion, whether the underlying logic is sensible or not, I can't agree or disagree with it. WilyD 16:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: Your opinion that the rationale is a non sequitur does not make the rationale non-existent. It is Steel1943's opinion that the redirect should be deleted for that reason—which objectively makes it a rationale for deletion. If you think the redirect should be kept, you would be wise to explain why you feel that Steel1943's rationale for deletion is incorrect, but to say there is not one is false. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is wrong. *If* a rationale for deletion had been presented, I could explain why I thought it was wrong, or why I thought some other rationale was stronger, or I could be persuaded by it (or, whatnot). But I can't do that here, because there's no rationale that's been presented with which one could agree or disagree. A rationale is a reason or justification for something. Something that doesn't contain a reason, justification, or the like is not a rationale. WilyD 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilyD: There is a rationale for deletion. It is, in short, WP:RDAB. You must be of the opinion that WP:RDAB is not a valid rationale for deletion, but that is not the same as there not being one at all. Since a rationale for deletion has been provided, WP:RDAB, you are more than welcome to explain why you think WP:RDAB is incorrect. For no rationale has been presented for deletion to be accurate, the nomination must be posted with zero explanation whatsoever, which is not the situation here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is flatly incorrect. WP:RDAB doesn't provide a rationale for deletion, valid, invalid, or otherwise. I can't say why it's correct or incorrect, because it's neither of those. The nominating statement also has a timestamp, but I can neither agree nor disagree with that as a rationale for deletion, because it's not one. WilyD 06:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Denethor I[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denethor I is not mentioned at the target article. Not to be confused with the more imporant Denethor II. Hog Farm (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rotten eggs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#Rotten eggs

Traps Are Gay[edit]

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 speedy delete. Redirect speedily deleted by Missvain per CSD G5. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this phrase at the target article (see Know Your Meme for context). I can't think of any other article where it would make sense to retarget this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rick Sanitarium[edit]

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 speedy delete and creation protected by PhilKnight. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nickname is not mentioned in any reliable sources and it is not discussed at the target article. Compare to other derogatory nicknames for politicians—such as Crooked Hillary or Snowflake-in-Chief—whose usage has been noted in independent sources and that are actually mentioned in their target articles. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect has been speedy deleted twice in the past, and one of those times was for WP:G10. I'm going to tag this redirect with {{Db-g10}}, but even if that gets denied, I recommend that this title get WP:SALT after/if it is deleted, especially considering that the same editor has created this redirect at least twice now. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted the redirect as an attack page and salted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Astrologaster[edit]

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 Move Astrologaster (video game) to Astrologaster. Swapping makes no sense because redirecting Astrologaster (video game) to Astrology is a nonstarter. wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page. I looked at this after stub-sorting Astrologaster (video game); added hatnote at Astrology as that's where this points, but can't find the term in the article. Is is just a synonym for "astrologer"? PamD 17:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Glanhir[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Hog Farm (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Categorisation of long-term insurance business for corporation tax purposes in the United Kingdom[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely long title that as a result is a very unlikely search target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remnant of a 2008 page move to a more appropriate title. BarkeepChat 16:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lillies Bordello[edit]

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 delete. As the other three companies were not actually listed with a tag and were not clearly discussed by all participants, I'm going to ask that those be formally nominated in a new discussion rather than acting on them now. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the target article, and, as far as I can tell, never has been. John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wouldn't be surprised if it never has been mentioned - a bordello is a brothel. Note that the creator, User:Rd809, was WP:INDEFfed in 2009 as a WP:SOCK.
Three other redirects were created by Rd809 within minutes of the one under discussion, and I suggest that they be bundled in here. None is mentioned in the target article:
Taboo Navan. This could be Taboo Nightclub, http://www.taboo.ie/[dead link], Navan, County Meath
Nass Court Hotel. Possibly Naas Court Hotel?
Bourjoi. No idea
Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. Easter Eggs that only seem to serve the purpose of avoiding redlinks on a single article (of questionable long-term relevance). That redlinking problem is more easily and appropriately resolved by simply removing the links from that article. Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those links were all added by Rd809 in this diff and were unsourced (as was the whole article at the time). IMO the veracity of that edit is in doubt. Narky Blert (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but there probably should be an article at that name - Lillies Bordello (often just Lillies) was one of the most famous nightclubs in Ireland for 20-something years, with significant news coverage, and both local (incl. U2) and international celebrity visibility. While not a topic for the ages, it was (it closed in 2019) certainly notable enough for an article. But this redirect is rubbish.SeoR (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Pearl King (songwriter)[edit]

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 retarget to Dave Bartholomew. signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dave Bartholomew. The nominator is quite correct. Pearl King was the name of Bartholomew's wife, and was sometimes listed as a co-writer on Bartholomew's songs. She is not WP:NOTABLE in her own right. And she is definitely not the quite separate musician Earl King - although other sources, outside this one, have sometimes got this wrong in the past and caused confusion (including, I'm sorry to say, me in this old edit, now corrected). Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dave Bartholomew per Ghmyrtle's convincing argument. Narky Blert (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Middle-earth Inns[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These inns are not discussed in any meaningful way in the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. They're not discussed in any meaningful way even in Tolkien. Fancruft trivia. Contrast The Prancing Pony, which is a perfectly good redirect to relevant information. Narky Blert (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ascar (Middle-earth)[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ascar" is not mentioned in a Middle-earth sense in the English Wikipedia, so a redirect for this with (Middle-earth) on the end is worthless. Delete as obscure fancruft. Hog Farm (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Andrath[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Mentioned at Misty Mountains as part of the place name "Cirith Forn en Andrath" but I don't think Andrath would be a logical search term even for that. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

These redirects are not discussed anywhere[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

32,768[edit]

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 retarget to 30,000. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 30,000 as the redirect from this number seems to be less useful between number and computer and science, I will suggest retarget to 30,000 per WP:NUMBER. 14.207.205.207 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of other powers of two from 211 up to 232 — 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Of course 32,768, 32768 and 32768 (number) should have the same target, and of course it should not be 30000, this is enwiki, not TikTok. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lithlad[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted to Middle-earth but the only time it's mentioned is exactly once at Mordor. I don't see a reason to have a redirect for something that's mentioned exactly once. Hog Farm (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

West Emnet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#West Emnet

East Bight[edit]

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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 00:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. A Middle-earth redirect whose Middle-earth meaning does not seem to be discussed anywhere. Potentially a confusing redirect since "East Bight" could be a real place. Hog Farm (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Emyn Uial[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This name is mentioned exactly once in the entire Wikipedia. Not mentioned at target article and unlikely search term. Hog Farm (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Limlight[edit]

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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ought to be deleted. By using the searchbar and adding a * to the front to bring up all instances of Limlight, I found two references at Rohan (Middle-earth), one at Fangorn, one at Misty Mountains, and one at Rhovanion. All of these references are brief mentions, usually as either a reference to the river serving as the boundary line to a region, or as the river being listed in a list of tributaries. With no actual description of this river around and brief, approximately equivalent references at four different places, I don't think there's any content to redirect to or a clear target. Also nominating Limlîht and Limliht as alternative spellings mentioned literally nowhere on the English Wikipedia. Hog Farm (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and because "Limlight" is a plausible misspelling of Limelight to boot. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Kibil-nala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#Kibil-nala

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_10&oldid=1138582956"