Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 25, 2020.

1918 pandelection[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence of this term being used this way. Delete unless evidence can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 25 May 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.

2020 pandelection[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online, most results seem to be Azerbaijani news sources commenting on an upcoming election in Nagorno Karabakh. I would suggest deletion due to a lack of broad usage by RS (and note that we don't seem to have an article for this upcoming election). signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 25 May 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.

No Drama Obama[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 retarget to Public image of Barack Obama#Temperament. per WP:SNOW. Very clear consensus to retarget here. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete unless the redirect is both mentioned and explained on either this article or somewhere else. OcelotCreeper (talk) 20:12, 25 May 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.

Mighty Thor: Battle Royal[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google tells me this somehow related to Nendoroid, and so my best guess is that this is a specific edition of those plastic figures. There is no information about it on Wikipedia at present, it's not the sort of thing that is likely to be encyclopaedic and Google searches do not suggest this is an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 26 May 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.

Thor sequel[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 Thor (film)#Sequels. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a few years have passed, this could also mean Thor: Ragnarok or the upcoming Love and Thunder film. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Thor (film)#Sequels. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thor (film)#Sequels per Tavix, this term is kinda ambiguous as to what it refers to, and that includes the possibly infinitely many Thor sequels that could be made in the future as well as those three. Regards, SONIC678 20:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix and Sonic678. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 22:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per everybody. I'm not sure deletion would ever be appropriate for something like this though - if there wasn't a specific target (that WP:BEFORE would have found) then disambiguation would be the way to go. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 26 May 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.

Public Service (TV series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Public Service (TV series)

Anial sex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Anial sex

Shit fuck[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous and unencyclopedic - could also refer to coprophilia, and I really doubt anyone searching for "shit fuck" is genuinely trying to find encyclopedic information on human sexuality. The pageviews probably come from bored teenagers typing rude words into the search box for fun. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No set usage, no encyclopedic purpose. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab as it could be used to refer to many things. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are not Urban Dictionary; and the much more common usage is as a compound expletive (see Jim Bouton's Ball Four, passim). Narky Blert (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google results show consecutive expletives are by far the most common use, and even on porn sites "oh shit, fuck me (harder)" is more common than meaning anal sex. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 26 May 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.

Marmango[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. According to the page history, the user said it was a term for Anal sex in Greek and Greek-American ceremonies. Delete unless the term is both mentioned and explained in the article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Urban Dictionary suggests it is a homoerotic Greek dance, but not evidence of common usage. Note to self: clear browser history Hog Farm (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hog Farm. I can only verify the creator's comments by Urban Dictionary and Yahoo Answers, neither of which are reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 26 May 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.

Knobbly stick[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A Google search brings up walking sticks, canes, and a minor object in Harry Potter. Hog Farm (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab- a knobbly stick can be many things. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. See also Harry Lauder: "The Corkscrew Hazel ornamental cultivar of common hazel (Corylus avellana) is sometimes known as Harry Lauder's Walking Stick, in reference to the crooked walking stick Lauder often carried." No full title matches, nothing to disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too ambiguous to disambiguate - it is used to refer to any stick or stick-like object that can be described as "knobbly" and this redirect is the only use of the exact phrase on Wikipedia. Even googling for "knobbly stick" "anal" doesn't find any uses of the term to mean anal sex, simply scenes/stories/videos where someone's bottom is hit by a literal knobbly stick or knobbly sex toy and then separately has anal sex. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Maybe inspired by the Ted Hughes's poem My Own True Family. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:20, 27 May 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.

Fudgepack[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 soft redirect per discussion. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to wikt:fudge packer and wikt:pack fudge as appropriate. People who type this into the search box (and aren't just searching up obscene stuff for a laugh) are probably looking for a definition of the slang term, not general information about anal sex. The term is mentioned at List of LGBT slang terms, but the Wiktionary entry provides more information. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per SpicyMilkBoy. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone deleted my contribution yesterday, these should be deleted, 14-16 aren't synonyms of the target, they are anti-gay slurs, but I am happy with whatSpicyMilkBoy proposes. jamacfarlane (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per SpicyMilkBoy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 26 May 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.

Butt stuff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Butt stuff

Butsecks[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 keep all but "Buttsachs".
-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the usefulness of these redirects. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the four phonetic redirects, phonetic misspellings are usually helpful. Delete Buttsachs, this one is a bit too far. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Buttsachs, keep the rest per Tavix. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Buttsachs per above. These are kind of silly, but not ambiguous, and fairly plausible. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Buttsachs and keep the rest per SpicyMilkBoy, Tavix, and Hog Farm above. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Buttsachs and keep the rest per the above. They get plenty of use, especially Buttsecks which got 330 hits last year. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 26 May 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.

Bum Secks[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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning these redirects purpose. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, phonetic misspellings of a colloquial way to refer to anal sex. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix above. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. These aren't used as much as some of the others, but they're all still harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 26 May 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.

Anal secks[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 keep. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the use of these redirects. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Anal seks - it got nearly 300 hits last year showing it's a clearly plausible search term for the target (maybe to get around content filtering?). Keep the others which got 25 and 33 hits last year, which is demonstrably useful and they aren't in the way of anything so WP:RCHEAP applies. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note these redirects have not been tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Thryduulf. Thanks for bringing that up. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:53, 25 May 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.

Anal queen[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this seems to be a term used in the pornography industry, both to describe actresses and as the title of an award. It's a clearly plausible search term, but I'm sure what the best target is although the current one is not bad. Anal pornography would be good if it weren't just a redirect to pornography. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: If you can find an article that explains this phrase or if the anal sex article is edited to do so, then speedy keep or retarget. I'm only saying delete right now because it appears people searching Wikipedia will not get any information on the subject. OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this redirect was not tagged, I've done that now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is common industry slang.--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:39, 25 May 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.

Anal queen[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 keep without prejudice. Please resubmit, bundling only highly related terms together. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search terms. Delete all unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all without prejudice against renomination individually or in small like-minded groups. This is a very wide range of redirects here, most of which look to be more-or-less plausible spelling errors and synonyms. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all without prejudice per Tavix. At first glance I see some that should clearly redirect here (e.g. Butt stuff), some that should clearly redirect somewhere but this may or may not be the best article (e.g. Anal queen), some that seem dubious (e.g. Anial sex), and some I have no idea about without research (e.g. Marmango). Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think these should be bundled separately? OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are some that are cearly related, e.g. "Fudgepack", "Fudgepacker" and "Fudgepacking" are probably fine to be bundled together but do some WP:BEFORE to check this. Same with others that are very clearly related and your research indicates that there is no reason to treat them separately. Just looking at the list I'd say there should be a minimum of 10 separate nomniations here if you intend to nominate them all, posisbly more depending on what the outcome of your investiagions prior to nominating are - 1 (Anal queen), 2 (Anal secks, Anal seks, Analsecks), 3 (Bum Secks, Bumsecks, Bumsecks, Bumseks), 4 (Butsecks, Buttsecks, Butt secks, Butsachs, Buttseks), 5 (Butt stuff), 6 (Fudgepack, Fudgepacker, Fudgepacking), 7 (Knobbly stick), 8 (Marmango, Marmango dance), 9 (Shit fuck), 10 (Anial sex). Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree these should be deleted, 14-16 aren't synonyms of the target, they are anti-gay slurs. jamacfarlane (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close and renominate per Thryduulf. WP:TRAINWRECK right now. I think Butt stuff would probably be kept, so maybe don't renominate that one. Hog Farm (talk) 18:15, 25 May 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.

Caragdûr[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, which is listed as a "redirect with possibilities", is an obscure cliff in Middle-earth. Currently not mentioned anywhere. In the fictional history, the cliff is only notable for a character being thrown off of the cliff, said character had their article deleted in March. Hog Farm (talk) 15:18, 25 May 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.

Dagmor[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmor is a Middle-earth weapon Wikipedia no longer has any content about; this has outlived its usefulness. Hog Farm (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suppose a footnote for Beren is possible but this really is an obscure detail. Except to those who collect cards of named swords and suchlike... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 25 May 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.

Borondir[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Very minor figure, probably out of scope to mention anywhere. Hog Farm (talk) 15:07, 25 May 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.

VW[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 procedural close. You are requesting a move, which is done at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please see the arguments below before proceeding with an RM though. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move VW (disambiguation) to VW. I hardly see Volkswagen simply referred to as VW. The dab page should be at VW, not VW (disambiguation). Also Volkswagen doesn't call itself VW. Logo fixer (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep this has tons of incoming links, I checked the first twenty and they are all meaning the current target. Every single result on the first 5 pages of a google search for "VW" are about Volkswagen, which does refer to itself as "VW" - see e.g. My VW on the official UK website, VW Vans & Commercial Vehicles official UK website. This is one of the clearest cases of primary topic you'll ever see. With over 350 hits in the month before nomination and over 7500 last year, this should RfD should be speedily closed as disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - this is a very widely known and used abbreviation (whether pronounced "fau veh" or "vee doubleyou"), both on and off the web. It's correctly targeted right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 25 May 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.

Tomb of Elendil[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Elendil is mentioned in many places, Wikipedia has no content about his tomb. Hog Farm (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is wikia stuff. Narky Blert (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no navigational function. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, this stuff is better left to the Middle Earth wikis. Regards, SONIC678 04:08, 4 June 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.

Rav Rabbah[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rav part is not mentioned in the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rav is a standard honorific for rabbis. An additional complication to consider here is that there have been other rabbis known as Rav Rabbah; the stub that was created at this title was attempting to refer to one that was part of the Geonim (and had a source that stated that there were actually two rabbis named Rabbah among the geonim). Disambiguation is possible, but I think that until we have a duly sourced mention at Geonim, the status quo of pointing to Rabbah bar Nahmani and having a hatnote from there to Geonim is best. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Myself an avid student of Jewish law etc., I never heard of such a combination "Rav Rabbah". Debresser (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think. The name "Rabbah" in Rabbah bar Nahmani was likely a contraction of "Rav/Rabbi Abba", so the name "Rav Rabbah" would be nonsensical in relation to him. Ar2332 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although Rav is a standard honorific. Referring to him as simply "Rav Rabbah" is vague and possibly misleading.Ibn Daud (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not so likely search term, but if kept (subjunctive) would otherwise require considerable disambiguation, and analysis of usage. Also the {{Redirect}} hatnote on the Rabbah bar Nahmani article is relatively useless in that regard and should be deleted along with this redirect. (For the above mentioned reasons of editors Ar2332 and Debresser I see no value in going there, but if one did, check out Rabbah bar bar Hana and Rabbah bar Abuha for starters.) --Bejnar (talk) 03:19, 30 May 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.

Beacon Communications[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Beacon Communications

Hurricane Henriette (2001)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 5#Hurricane Henriette (2001)

Sharktooth Hill[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Sharktooth Hill

Order of the Golden Lion[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 Order of the Lion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect to either Order of the Gold Lion of the House of Nassau, which is the more important of the orders of the Golden Lion,[1][2][3] or to Order of the Lion as incomplete disambiguation. DrKay (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to DAB page Order of the Lion as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. The Dutch name of the Nassau order says "Gouden Leeuw" (=golden lion) and the French "Lion d'Or" (=lion of gold); the English name "Gold Lion" isn't a literal translation of either, but does make clear (unlike the adjective "golden") that the metal is being referred to rather than the colour. Narky Blert (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:32, 25 May 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.

Article the Third[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 Article Three and edited the said dab page to include the original target of this redirect. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a historical name for this (see [4]), however, it's fairly ambiguous with Article Three of the United States Constitution. Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig is the obviously correct answer when there is an ambiguous search term that has multiple equally plausible targets. Google is also giving me hits related to the third article of the Treaty of Waitangi so that should be considered for the dab page too. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Article Three. There is no need for a duplicate disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine if the dab page is extended to cover uses of "Article the third" as it currently has only one of the three articles mentioned here listed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab per CycloneYoris. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and disambiguate at Article Three. No need for two pages doing the same thing. --Bejnar (talk) 04:03, 30 May 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.

CCP virus[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 Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It is a They are non-neutral names of the SARS-CoV-2, not the 2020 pandemic. Therefore, retarget to SARS-CoV-2 misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon and maintain status quo. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close the last RFD closed less than a week ago. Unlikely that consensus has changed since that time. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosguill, the closer of the last discussion, told Soumya-8974 to start a new discussion when they tried to action the retarget themselves. Since the last discussion was focused on whether or not to delete, this one can be limited to a narrower "retarget or keep" discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 25 May 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.

Digital content creation tools[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Digital content creation tools

Ass full of knife[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be a common slang term for the target. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like a WP:NEO than a WP:G10. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:15, 1 June 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.

Sosospider[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Sosospider

(A.M.A)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and unlikely search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to AMA. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a specific reason the parentheses are necessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We only have parentheses in titles if they are part of an official name or enclose a qualifier. This is a very unlikely search term indeed. Narky Blert (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to AMA per Soumya-8974. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that this redirect was an article first. Also, if a retarget to Ama is the right way to go then the redirect should target Ama#AMA. — J947 [cont] 20:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC) — J947 [cont] 20:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any businesses with this particular stylization. The only one that is strange is the American Marketing Association which has something like ɅM> AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy, no particular value in these punctuation marks, especially out of context. Who types extra keystrokes? --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy (or guideline)? Bejnar, please note RHARMFUL. — J947 [cont] 21:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • On your second point @J947:, I have checked, and while it is not possible to be truly exhaustive, I have found no harm (as cataloged at RHARMFUL). I did find an old link from Talk:Arabic hip hop that was intended to be to: an Arab-American rapper known as "all.mighty.ameer". See,e.g., [5]. That history, of the now deleted non-notable rapper, is all in the history of the Arabic hip hop article and its talk page, q.v.. While it is theoretically possible that there is a non-Wikipedia link to this redirect, it is highly unlikely. (For example, many search engines ignore punctuation marks.) I found no harm in deleting this redirect. There is no potentially useful page history.
      • On your first point, consider Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Focus on "indiscriminate". Second look at If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful.  --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bejnar, note that I am not actually opining to keep this redirect; it is extremely close to being useless. I commented because the lack of awareness of RHARMFUL is a common problem among new contributors to RfD. However, I disagree that IINFO is an applicable argument. It applies to data in articles, and obscure redirects are neither of those things. You referred to D8, but it is is iffy in its wording – unlikely to be useful, should generally not be created aren't specifically reasons to delete (the section itself is labelled You might want to delete, note the might), and {{R from modification}}s like this redirect are ambiguous as novel or very obscure synonyms. Also, note that links outside Wikipedia are surprisingly common – though not necessarily in this scenario. — J947 [cont] 04:18, 1 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25&oldid=961542872"