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 18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• San Diego Chargers Depth Chart → Los Angeles Chargers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such content is provided anywhere on enwiki, it appears. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A depth chart isn't encyclopedic enough for coverage here, so redirects based on them shouldn't be allowed either. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Justvikings also created Baltimore Ravens Depth Chart and New York Giants Depth Chart at the same time. They can be deleted for the same reasons (although, unlike the nominated redirect, these teams still exist). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 13 October 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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pot parlor → Cannabis shop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is not mentioned in that article, nor is there any mention about pots. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pot in this instance is a slang term for Cannabis.--76.67.170.18 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible redirect to List of names for cannabis as a section for Slang names for a cannabis shop. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a synonym. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly a synonym for the target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 9 October 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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Liraz → Liraz Charhi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are a lot of people named Liraz. There is no any reason for this redirect to point to Liraz Charhi only Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't find any other individuals named Liraz neither as a given name or a surname. In case there are, you can always add them and change from a redirect to a disambiguation. Of course there are many Liraz mentioned "within" articles. But no independent stand alone article with the name besides Liraz Charhi. Would you like me to add more Liraz from within articles where they may be mentioned? werldwayd (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is only one possible target for this name. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:22, 11 October 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.

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 Nude recreation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) | free Thailand 16:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clothing optional → Nude beach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Clothing Optional → Nude beach  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not all nude beaches are clothing optional and not all place that are clothing optional are nude beaches so this is not the best target for this search term. It should lead somewhere, but where that should be I'm not sure - maybe a broad concept/dab? Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, clothing optional and nude beach are not the same, although there is an overlap. Maybe clothing optional needs it's own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roly Williams (talk • contribs) 0:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. This redirect could also mean Nude recreation or Naturism, so this is an ambiguous term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nude recreation since that describes and details clothing optional activities / facilities. The use of the term on the Naturist article is within the sections and context of such facilities. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Angus. Tamzin (they/them) | o toki tawa mi. 04:50, 12 October 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.

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 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamaican Shower → Cannabis smoking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A Google search suggests this is a specific type of pot smoking, although enwiki doesn't seem to have any content on it. With a lack of explanation, this redirect is confusing. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't Urban Dictionary. This name may also seem offensive and stereotypical to some users, which we normally wouldn't care about if it had decent mainstream coverage and usage. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:41, 10 October 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.

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 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Smoking (non-tobacco) → Cannabis smoking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous with Smoking (cooking), and this doesn't seem like a great term for having a dab page at this title. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:29, 9 October 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.

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon → Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphiokarabomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Incorrect transliteration of the fictional dish. Notice "parao" in the redirect instead of "karabo" in the target. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - By the time the user typing this gets to that part of the string, the correct one is showing. I'm not seeing someone typing this in. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from move)). This was the title of the article between 2014 and August this year. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' per Uanafala. In addition to links from old revisions and external sites, people may copy and paste this into the search box or use it in an environment where search suggestions are not available (direct URL entry, javascript not available, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Missed the R from move part, somehow. That's embarrassing. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The page resided at this former title long enough that deleting it now is a bad idea (e.g. existing link breakage, returning readers, etc.). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I nominated the target for deletion, see this page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target could possibly be reported as WP:G1. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:43, 12 October 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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Inauguration of Joe Biden → 2021 United States presidential inauguration  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this is a bit too soon and would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:R3. Yeah, way too soon. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's a plausible search term for someone looking for more information about the 2021 inauguration. Guettarda (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guettarda:} - Except if Joe Biden loses, which has probably a 40-45% chance of happening, then this is blatantly wrong. We don't know if Joe Biden is going to be inagurated or in 2021, and won't know until after the election, and possibly later, as mail-in balloting may lead to some lawsuits that hold up a decision. I don't think we can redirect this here until/if Biden wins the election. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: There's no requirement that a redirect has to be accurate, just that it's a plausible search term. Some subset of people who are interested in how the 2021 inauguration works are likely to use this search term. After all, polling puts the odds of Biden winning around 85%. It's a plausible redirect, which is all it needs to be. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree this is WP:CRYSTAL - we don't know yet whether it's toosoon or wrong (although I know which one I'd prefer, I don't get a say). Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. Luckily we do have a crystal ball for this situation, and it's predicting that the redirect will be correct. Just give this discussion the three relist treatment and it'll be after the election by the time it's closed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. This is speculative as long as the outcome is not known, and I see no reason to beat around the bush for three weeks. Should Biden win, someone can easily recreate this redirect at that time. ComplexRational (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Give this the R3 treatment please. No matter how inevitable it seems, if it's not confirmed, we can't have it. No exceptions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Second inaguration of Donald Trump does not exist. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dewey Defeats Truman. (In other words, delete, per NOTCRYSTAL, as above). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now can be recreated immediately if he wins.--76.67.169.43 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now easy enough to recreate. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. If Biden wins, it can be recreated. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 14:50, 15 October 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.

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 18:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Lambert → Rayners Lane F.C.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect whose purpose is unclear. It leads from a person's name to a junior league football club, but the name does not actually appear in the article at all -- and even at the time this was created the name didn't appear in the article at all (and I can't find any later introductions of it afterward either), so even the purpose it served 12 years ago is unclear. This also isn't a level of play that would guarantee automatic passage of our notability criteria for sportspeople, so even if it were possible to source what relationship this person had with the football club in 2008, there still wouldn't necessarily be a meaningful notability claim. And even more importantly, there's now a significantly more notable person of the same name (see Prix Ringuet and Draft:Prix Sade) who has a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the undisambiguated name. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to allow recreation Previously I said this redirect had very few hits, but I looked closer and it turns out it has over a thousand... and I would bet most people are wanting to know about the other entity instead, being WP:SURPRISEd that it goes the way it does. We're missing a very valuable opportunity here by allowing this nonsense redirect to exist. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:38, 16 October 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.

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ali Osman Karnapoglu → Ali Karnapoğlu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could be deleted, because the correct redirect Ali Osman Karnapoğlu already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilyaris (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this, it's plausible to search without the breve above the G, like Ali Karnapoglu which gets a good number of pageviews per year. On that note, this one could also get a similar number from helping facilitate searches like this. Regards, SONIC678 15:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible search term and a plausible in-text link. I'm not sure how to generate "ğ", and if I were editing an article, I'd probably use a redirect like this to find the proper link, copy the character, and fix the link. That kind of thing wouldn't work without the redirect. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Precisely because readers and editors don't always know how to type diacritic characters at all, titles with accented characters in them should virtually always have a redirect in place from the unaccented form of the same title. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see ((R without diacritics)). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 13 October 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.

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) 03:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Avengers film → Avengers: Endgame  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Endgame it out now, this page might be needed in the future for another project. ★Trekker (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with this continuing to redirect to Endgame until such time that a new, but at that point untitled, Avengers film is announced. Alternatively, I'd say we should just delete it. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the issue with just getting it out of the way right away? All these "Untitled such and such" should honestly be deleted right away when an article gets a propper name. They no longer fill any purpose and take up space.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Endgame is and titled and released film, rendering the redirect as no longer needed. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is no longer necessary to retain given Endgame is the commonly known title for the film and getting it out of the way now would prevent it from causing an inconvenience in the future if it is needed then. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per past RfDs regarding this here and here. After originally using the working title Infinity War Part II, Endgame was known as the "Untitled Avengers film" from July 2016 until December 2018, so it is a valid redirect to keep. We can cross the bridge as the nominator noted for a future film potentially using this title, if that even is something that happens. But for now, the redirect should stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding too that "untitled Avengers film" appears in the article, once in the production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is used as a term. Not as a name. Basically just a placeholder. Rulforth (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not necessary anymore. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seventyfiveyears: It seems your response is conflicting. Can you clarify? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT I know that seems extreme but I don't see how they stop making Avengers films, even if the MCU comes to an end and they reboot it down the line. Even if this weren't a moving target with a changing definition, it also reeks of WP:CRYSTAL since it assumes there will always be an as-yet untitled project relevant to the Avengers in development. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: it also reeks of WP:CRYSTAL since it assumes there will always be an as-yet untitled project relevant to the Avengers in development that's why I !voted for it to remain, and to remain pointed at Endgame because that film was known by "Untitled Avengers film" for a pretty lengthy time. And yes, while there will be more Avengers films, we're all assuming they will immediately be announced without titles, which is why I say leave it where it is and we cross that bridge later if we need too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think this redirect will be necessary forever in that case. I think WP:RECENT applies here, in that this is not a name for the movie that will stick forever because it would only have been known as such leading up to it actually getting a title. Could you tell me if the name actually appears in the article itself? (I've not been able to sit through the movie yet so I don't want any more spoilers than I've already got :P) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Yes it does, once in the production section, along with once at the dedicated production article for Infinity War and Endgame. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. That title was always meant to be temporary and had served its purpose. "Untitled" pages should be deleted once the subject is titled. And it could be recreated in the future for another subject. Rulforth (talk) 23:52, 18 October 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.

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 18:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled The New Mutants film → New Mutants#In other media  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No need for this anymore. The film is out. ★Trekker (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is completely unnecessary. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 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.

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 French Open – Mixed Doubles → 2020 French Open  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It’s probably not going to be held this year. – 333-blue at 11:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No it isn't being held, but it's a plausible search term, as articles exists for all previous years. And a redirect to the 2020 French Open article which says it's cancelled is useful to understand- there is a sentence in that article which clearly explains it's not happening. And the redirect helps with categorisation of Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic- most of which are redirects, because cancelled events aren't generally independently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep exactly per Joseph2302. We've had several of these redirects nominated this year and none of them have been deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - why wouldn't we keep a logical search term? Obviously we don't have an article because of the cancelation, but readers might search for the term in the future. A redirect seems correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @333-blue: you've struck your nomination statement, does this indicate a desire to withdraw the nomination? Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: yes – 333-blue at 13:55, 10 October 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.

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rusian → Old East Slavic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Could also be a misspelling of Russian. Retarget to Russian. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rusian with one 's' is a correct alternative name for either Old East Slavic and Ruthenian language, and is mentioned at both articles. I am not sure whether the best solution here is to disambiguate for those two languages, or retarget to Rus, or what, but retargetting to Russian is not a good idea - correct spellings should take priority over misspellings. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per the ip. Russian can be linked as a see-also. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is or disambiguate. This shouldn't redirect to Russian any more than Rusyn should; they're separate terms that mean different things. Vorziblix (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All this achieves by its existence is to block the search engine doing its job. It is not quite WP:XY, since Belarus ad Belarusian exist, but certainly I think someone typing "Rusian" is perhaps looking for Russian. I doubt they are looking (in English WP) for anything else, they are not looking for a ruse nor a rosa nor a rusu]. All this does is blocks readers from finding the article they want: so let the search engine do its job. MagyarLinguist (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
• We do disambiguate when a term can refer to two or more articles even in cases where the search engine would have done well (and here it doesn't). Draft available below the redirect – I've followed 59.149.124.29's suggestion and checked the articles, I haven't checked with the sources. – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This can refer to Ruthenian or Rus' as well, and in most cases will refer to one of those two not old east slavic. blindlynx (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per all above. List all possible entities, whether mentioned here or not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:41, 16 October 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.

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 per WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Christopher Hollins → Christopher Hollins  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I made this page by mistake. I was trying to move a draft to mainspace and I thought that would be accomplished by moving it to "Wikipedia", but the correct choice was "(Article)". There is no need for a redirect. Sorry. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G7. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @David Tornheim: You aren't the first to make this mistake and you won't be the last, but if you think of any way to make the instructions clearer please do share your ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 9 October 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.

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 to Wikt:worship the porcelain god. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Worship the porcelain god → Vomiting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

None of "worship", "porcelain" or "God" appear in the target article. Porcelain god does exist though as a soft redirect to Wiktionary so I suggest we retarget this there. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 7#Bow down before the porcelain god. Thryduulf (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Found an even better target Soft redirect to wikt:worship the porcelain god. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed better. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. We're not a dictionary of slang phrases. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per above. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIC. If people want to find out what this phrase means, then they can find it at Wiktionary. What we tend to do here at an enyclopaedia, is say what the etymology is, using WP:RS and so on. We don't have Point Percy at the porcelain nor a Lady's Excuse-Me. We're not a slang dictionary, leave that to UrbanDictionary. MagyarLinguist (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per those above. Given that it has existed since 2014, that seems like the best call. WP:SOFTSISP might do well with a clause to that effect. As interesting as this phrase is, it would be less defensible if new. However, common practice here does not necc. align with the guidance there (i.e. soft redirects, in the case of wiktionary specifically, are a more common result under circumstances outside of what it lets on at this forum; it really speaks more in regard to de facto creation standards). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 14:52, 11 October 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.

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 18:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalist pig-dog → List of German expressions in English#German terms mostly used for literary effect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can find no mentions of this phrase on enwiki. Without any explanation anywhere, I don' think this is helpful. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. I can't immediately find evidence we have ever had any content about this. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I believe it's a literal translation of the German "Schweinehund", which is usually given its metaphorical and pejorative sense in English literature—the product of an illegitimate union—rather than a dog used in pig-herding. I don't know if the term was borrowed by or translated into Russian, or if the combination with "capitalist" is coincidental, but remember, Marx wrote in German, not Russian, so a great deal of Marxist literature during Orwell's time would likely have used German terminology. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no suitable target, really. Bourgeoisie maybe provides some helpful links, and Capitalist Piglet is just a bit too far off and kind of a niche topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 13 October 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.