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 no consensus default to keep. The delete side says the tire company is not the stadium, but the keep side says the article about the eponymous stadium is the only article on the English Wikipedia with information about the tire company. Deryck C. 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunn Tire → Sahlen Field  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Dunn Tire is a tire company, not a stadium. Dunn Tire Park is a reasonable redirect, but this one is not. — Aᴋʀᴀʙʙıᴍ ^talk 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Keep Dunn Tire Park. JIP | Talk 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Buffaboy (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is mentioned in the article that it is a local tire store, but I don't know if it will be as notable as Sahlen's. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Tommycw1 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or refine to Sahlen Field#Naming rights). The only noteworthy thing in Wikipedia on Dunn Tire is that they sponsored the stadium formerly known as Dunn Tire Park. The section also mentions they are a chain of tire outlets, so you may learn something additional from being redirected there. On top of that, it can also be a useful shorthand because the suffix is often dropped when the context is known. It would be natural to tell someone you are "going to Sahlen to watch the Bisons", and it is understood that you are going to Sahlen Field, not going a meat packing facility (to watch them pack Bison meat?! idk). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. No reason to delete. WP:R#D2 for confusion is not applicable here. Jay ^(Talk) 05:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Why is it not applicable? The confusion is exactly the reason why I nominated it, when looking for information on the tire company. — Aᴋʀᴀʙʙıᴍ ^talk 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you were directed to the only information Wikipedia has on the tire company—the fact that they sponsored a minor league ballpark for a decade. I understand being disappointed if you were expecting a full article on the company, but local tire companies don't generate non-routine significant coverage so there really shouldn't be that kind of expectation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The confusion you are referring to will happen for most redirects. What WP:R#D2 refers to is confusion with another target. Did the redirect confuse you with a target than Sahlen Field? Jay ^(Talk) 18:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a plausible search term. Old name for a AAA ball field. If the company is not notable enough to have its own article, no reason to redirect to the field. It becomes a less likely search term every day. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company's name is mentioned several times at target article, no reason to delete. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 9 July 2021 (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 No consensus, default to delete. There is clear consensus to not keep this redirect due to the racist nature of its current use. Both Doja Cat and Alt-right#Use of memes have been suggested as plausible targets where the use of this term is discussed. Given the urgency to make it not point to the current target I'm deleting for now. Whether this should be recreated as a redirect to one of the proposed retargets can be left as a matter for a separate debate or bold action. Deryck C. 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dindu Nuffin → George Floyd  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Where should this redirect point? To Doja Cat discography as a song? Probably better to point to Doja Cat#Controversies. Alt-right#Use of memes is the primary usage, but disambiguating is an option. Current target and the one before are obviously not ideal. J947^{'s public account} 22:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalisation is also an element here. J947^{'s public account} 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sending this to any individual person is nothing but racist. For the time being, I'm going to redirect it to the Doja Cat link, just so that we can reduce the misery in the world for a short period. Jorm (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS, as with Dindu Nuffin (song). Alt-right#Use of memes with a hatnote pointing to Doja Cat would be an acceptable too. Current target is clearly "offensive or abusive" and should not be kept. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC) Striking part of the above per Ardenter, since this is not not an established term used by RSes. 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE #3. My DIFFCAPS rationale assumed that Dindu nuffin would also exist. But if there's just the version with both words capitalized, then searching for either it or the (song)-specified title will lead readers to the same page, making this title redundant and potentially confusing, as well as being a clearly offensive or abusive term not in wide use by reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as soon as possible due to the unencyclopedic and racist nature of the terms. Ardenter (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If there weren't other viable targets, this could probably be deleted as vandalism. Both Floyd and the original target, Trayvon Martin, are utterly unacceptable targets for a racial slur, and I'll be saying as much to the redirect's creator.
  Given that Doja Cat's controversy wouldn't have been possible without the alt-right's usage of the term, I think the latter is the clear primary topic. I first heard the term maybe five years ago, and memorably it was used by an alt-right gunman during the Ferguson protests. As to DIFFCAPS, when it's just a matter of sentence case vs. title case for a two-word title I don't accord a huge amount of weight to that. I would thus support retargeting to Alt-right § Use of memes. A hatnote can be added if necessary, although personally I don't see the need, for a song that doesn't even have an article. It would also be reasonable to soft-redirect to wikt:dindu nuffin. (Also, Dindu Nuffin (song) currently redirects to Doja Cat § controversies. Unless anyone objects before this RfD closes, I'll retarget that to the discography page.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Dindu Nuffin (song) should be kept as is – the discography page provides much less information. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Doja Cat per Sangdeboeuf. I thought it was a misspelling of Dunder Mifflin at first. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy-tagged per WP:G5 as page creator has been blocked for long-term abuse/sockpuppetry. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sangdeboeuf: Because editors here have !voted against deletion, applying G5 would go against the spirit of the "no substantial edits by others" requirement, so I've un-tagged. I actually meant to note that here just to clarify why I'd tagged Chimp out but not this, but totally forgot to. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as soon as possible with Salt This is only used for racism.--Jorm (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have enver ehard of this, until a very mionor controversy. Moroever what will it redirect to?Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Slatersteven: I've moved your comment here from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10, since the discussion's been moved here. Have you read the above? It answers your question, or at least gives some potential answers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am (now) aware of the Doja Cat link, but is this what it is mainly known for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say it's mainly known for its status as a racist meme, which is why I've supported retargeting to Alt-right § Use of memes. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or disambig it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Alt-right § Use of memes, since it's mentioned there. Even if the creator if this redirect was intending to be racist, they still screwed it up because this meme has been around at least since Michael Brown was killed. Mlb96 (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was this verbiage added or trimmed recently in response to the RFD? Pinging @Midnightblueowl: who has been pruning the article? Might be okay to redirect there if the Doja Cat single isn't as notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alt-right#Use of memes where it is explained. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alt-right#Use of memes where it is mentioned per Mlb96 and Tavix. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:46, 9 July 2021 (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/no consensus.

• Retarget Thought Crimes to Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop;
• No consensus for Thought crimes, default to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought Crimes → Thoughtcrime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Thought crimes → Thoughtcrime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Thought Crimes was for a few minutes in 2006 the (incorrect) title for the article now at Thoughtcrimes. After that article was moved, the redirect was swiftly retargeted to Thoughtcrime. Since then, however, the movie Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop has come out. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I propose we retarget to Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop, on the premise that someone using the capital C is more likely to be looking for the movie. The movie article can have a hatnote to Thoughtcrime and Thoughtcrimes.

Thought crimes didn't exist till a few minutes ago, but I created it as a companion to this one, as clearly it should exist. Again per WP:SMALLDETAILS, I've targeted it to Thoughtcrime, on the premise that someone using the lowercase c is more likely to be looking for the general concept, and thus propose that we keep this target. but Ivanvector's convinced me I should have pointed it to the film instead. Retarget it as well. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to the newer film with a hatnote listing both Orwell's thoughtcrime and the older Thoughtcrimes film. Actually I think there's a good case to be made for merging thoughtcrime into Thought Police: both articles are about basically the same topic, and each one is missing some coverage that's done well in the other. I tend to disagree with WP:SMALLDETAILS when the small detail is a capital letter: it's much more likely in the google era that people type search terms in all lowercase, and when a capital letter is the only distinct small detail we should treat the terms as basically the same. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Y'know, I just !voted against a single-letter-capitalization-only SMALLDETAILS argument in the section above, so I guess in the past week you've convinced me. Adjusting nom !vote accordingly. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget Thought Crimes to the Cannibal Cop one and Keep thought crimes pointing to thoughtcrime. I'll create a disambiguation for the rest. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Thoughtcrime (disambiguation) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget uppercase to Cannibal Cop, Retarget lowercase to DAB created by Angus. Jay ^(Talk) 06:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget uppercase only for the reasons above. This is a minor documentary and thoughtcrime has a hundredfold more pageviews. Pretty understandable for a user split thought crime into two words. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:04, 30 June 2021 (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. Everyone is clearly opposed to the status quo, delete has a slight numeric majority. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jew killer → Adolf Hitler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems like an unlikely search term and is inappropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While Hitler's responsibility for the deaths of millions of Jews is (mostly) undisputed, there is no evidence that this name is or has ever been commonly used to refer to him. General Ization ^Talk 02:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak disambiguate to:

Jimmy McLarnin, a boxer whose nickname was once "The Jew Killer".

Castrillo Mota de Judíos, also known as the "Jew-Killer camp".

The Holocaust in case people are looking for Jewish genocide AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No suitable target. The best target would probably be Jimmy McLarnin, but even that isn't a particularly good target because I doubt many people who would search that term are looking for a boxer. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not only an unlikely search term to look for Hitler ("Hmm, I can't remember the name of that German guy, I just remember that he was a Jew killer.") , also could easily be targeted at Himmler, Heydrich, Eichman, Höss, Frank, and many others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad, there is no one single person to whom this can be targeted. - Jay ^Talk 05:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose retarget to Jimmy McLarnin, because of the confusion it will create with the literal meaning per Tamzin, and because k in killer is lowercase. "Jew Killer" or "The Jew Killer" would have been less ambiguous. - Jay ^Talk 20:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak re-target to Jimmy McLarnin. It’s conceivable that someone searching for him might only remember that nickname (which, to be frank, would stick in one’s mind more than his name if you’re not a boxing aficionado). I can’t see any other reason why someone would legitimately put that into the search box. So, otherwise delete per BMK, Jay etc. DeCausa (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BMK, unless it can be shown that Jimmy McLarnin's erstwhile nickname still has currency (it isn't mentioned on his article). Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The nickname is mentioned in the Infobox and was added by a since blocked user. I have added a citation needed tag. - Jay ^Talk 08:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve added a citation to the article - from a 2004 obituary, so I think has currency.DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't forget that someone might see the nickname in a contemporary article and search based on that. Accordingly it doesn't matter whether the nickname is currently notable only whether it ever was, and the answer to that is a clear yes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-direct to Jimmy McLarnin, the nickname clearly does have currency. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely not to Adolf Hitler. I'd prefer it to go altogether. Zero^talk 12:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jimmy McLarnin, ((R from nickname)). Whether we like it or not, it is a valid nickname for this boxer. Many historic boxers' nicknames are kind of awful when you look at them in 2021, but they're still information. I'd prefer if there was not a redirect hatnote at that target. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BMK. Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per PEIsquirrel. File:Mattx8y pfp.png Mattx8y (talk · contribs) 21:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though it was McLarnin's nickname, I really doubt that the average person searching for "Jew killer", a term which could sadly refer to thousands of article subjects, is looking for an article on an Irish–Canadian boxer who did not in fact kill any Jews. Violence against Jews is surprisingly a redlink. The concept is discussed variously at Antisemitism, Pogrom, and Persecution of Jews. The first feels too broad and the second too narrow, so I would say retarget to Persecution of Jews, although I'd be fine with any of those three targets. If the choice is between McLarnin and deletion, though, I'd say delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per BMK. But Tamzin retarget proposal also seems good to me. Benbaruch (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jimmy McLarnin, per PEIsquirrel, and others. It is a verifiable nickname, and although there are other uses, none arise to the same level, i.e. a specific target, established usage. User approval of another's nickname is not required. --Bejnar (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget I wasn't really thinking about much when making it redirect to "Adolf Hitler" it was mostly for testing redirects. Though i think it should retarget to "persecution of jews". FizzoXD (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as pretty ridiculous. If someone wants to create a page at "Jew Killer" (note caps) for the boxer's nickname, go ahead. But the lower case page is inexact with no useful history. Ultimately I don't see how this redirect could be of any other use. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ridiculous and over the top. No need to retarget to Jimmy McLarnin -- too obscure. Redirects are cheap, but not via an incendiary and racially charged term. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2021 (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 no consensus. Editors were split between proposals to delete, retarget elsewhere, or keep the current target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:8BALL → User:MZMcBride/8-ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to WP:CHECKUSER. 8ball primarily refers to CU and not a userspace magic 8ball, see ((8ball))  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: . WP:8ball and WP:MAGIC8BALL redirect to a section of the CheckUser page. dudhhr_Contribs 22:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per the principle of least astonishment. Note that there's a few userpages where the redirect would need to be bypassed, but none of anyone active. Courtesy ping to MZMcBride. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on Dudhhr's edit: Specifically, refine to Wikipedia:CheckUser § Guidance given to CheckUsers for consistency. @Dudhhr: Please remember to make it obvious when you edit a comment to which someone has already replied, per WP:TALK#REVISE. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "answer like an 8 ball" from the text at WP:CHECKUSER, is merely suggesting to be vague/opaque in detail but clear in response. it's not saying you have to say the word(s) "8 ball". or even to use that template. Templates are a convenient alternative to text. nothing more. Is there a better arguement for changing than "He has it but we wants it"? - jc37 04:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: retarget everything to User:MZMcBride/8-ball. Note that this page was never a redirect to the checkuser policy (it originally redirected to Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, which at the time of the redirect's creation had a Magic 8-ball section, [1]) but it makes sense for all of these titles to target the same place. "Answer like a Magic 8-ball" isn't a helpful instruction to include in a policy: it makes it sound like checkuser is a game or that we're just making stuff up, and I'm going to go propose it be reworded or removed. Personally I only use the ((8ball)) template when a request is difficult to parse and the results likely to be uninformative, which I now see isn't the prescribed use at all; in any case I use the prescribed finding templates (((confirmed)), ((possible)), ((unrelated)), ((inconclusive)), etc) for actual results. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For whatever it's worth, sounds good to me. - jc37 23:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This is our typical solution to barely used and potentially ambiguous WP-space redirects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete current redirect doesn't add value, as no-one would be looking for it. And doesn't seem like there's an actually plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per KoH and Joseph, as barely used ambiguous project-space redirects. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect to a page actually resembling a Magic 8-Ball. I've never seen that page before, but I like it! -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. Checkuser does not have a monopoly on the generic concept of magic 8 balls on Wikipedia, and it's a very minor thing there anyway and not the sort of thing that would be expected to have it's own page. Accordingly I don't see this as ambiguous, but hatnotes are a thing if anybody really desires so I don't buy the arguments this is harmful at all. That leaves us with a harmless redirect that some people clearly see value in, so it's an easy keep. Thryduulf (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2021 (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! 09:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keiichi Arawi → Nichijou  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Since another one of Arawi's series, City, recently had an article created, there could be two possible targets, thus it should be deleted per WP:XY for the time being until someone can give Arawi a full article. Link20XX (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag R with possibilties so a draft or stub can be created. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is still arguably most known for Nichijou considering it got an anime and City has not, plus both articles link to each other in the see also section, so I don't see why I shouldn't stay redirected to Nichijou at least until an article is created for the author.--十八 19:18, 24 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Life is boring, why do I have this life? → Meaning of life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only hits on the entire (Google-indexed) Web are Wikipedia mirrors. Potentially in R3 territory. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no notable media title for this. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per R3, was created on June 6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Implausible? Probably. Misnomer? I think not. R3 doesn't apply. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Tamzin's findings -Lenticel ^(talk) 12:17, 29 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone counts → Collectivism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term; while I can see how it's somewhat related to collectivism, it's not really equivalent and doesn't appear to have had any use thus far based on pageviews. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term. Google result show that it could refer to a number of things—two books, a company, a non-profit. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 15:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and Everybody Counts are slogans to non-notable programs and article titles. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Grnrchst (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 13:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd fuck her → List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters#Bronn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, not mentioned at target. Yes, the character in question did use the phrase in Game of Thrones, but that doesn't mean we need a redirect for it. firefly ( t · c ) 09:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Noting that Firefly asked my opinion on this on Discord prior to nominating.) Common phrase. Used by any number of people in any number of contexts. It's true that if you Google this term several of the top results are about a meme featuring Bronn saying "I'd fuck her"... and then a bunch of the other top results are just porn. By page 2 it's mostly porn. While Bronn is the plurality primary topic here, I still doubt that the average person typing this in (for whatever reason they'd type it in) is looking for our content on him. And, since the meme isn't mentioned at the target, the redirection will be confusing for anyone who didn't intend this. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both above. As someone completely unfamiliar with the meme, in the unlikely event I used this search term I would be surprised to land at the page about a specific person/character and doubly surprised if that person/character wasn't someone who uses she/her pronouns. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not a meme database or compendium. Also, while WP is not censored, if someone is typing in an innocent search team (say... "I'd fully like"? Idk) and this comes up as a suggestion, I don't think it gives a good impression of our site, considering (and only because) it's not discussed at the target and is really just a superfluous joke which does not at all improve WP ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a catchphrase for the character. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:36, 24 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 13:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sufuck university → Suffolk University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, no hits on various search engines other than for this redirect or scraping sites. firefly ( t · c ) 08:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless evidence can be found of it being used by anything other than mirrors. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin. Assuming that the US university is pronounced the same way as the English county, then this is a phonetic respelling but there is no evidence I can find that it's one anybody actually uses. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't even have a redirect for Sufuck. If this is meant to be a gag name it can be redirected there, but I don't see usage or mention there in external news sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G10. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (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 Fuckbook. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck book → Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In this case, I'm not nominating the standardly-formatted disambiguation, Fuck (book), since Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties does seem to be the only book listed at Fuck (disambiguation). Formatted this way, however, I would more expect fuck book to refer to some form of erotic literature (such as Tijuana bibles, this page's original target), a little black book, the album Fuckbook, or Fuckbook (dating site) (a redlink, and likely to stay that way). Weak retarget to the album Fuckbook, but also can see cases for dabbing or deleting. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Fuckbook as a very plausible misspelling, and add a hatnote to the current target and/or the dab. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the Fuckbook album per Thryduulf AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Fuckbook per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:20, 29 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 13:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck article → Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Fuck paper → Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The book was indeed based on a paper, and so Fuck (article) and Fuck (paper) are reasonable ((r from subtopic))s, but I don't see the non-parenthetically-disambiguated forms as plausible search terms. I'm not sure what someone searching for "Fuck article" or "Fuck paper" is likely to be looking for, but I doubt it's this book. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 10:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not likely looking for a paper, and if so it's not the primary topic AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:43, 27 June 2021 (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 Computer hardware. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weird and seemingly useless redirect, we don't need "Foo components" term redirecting to every article about a device. Not an encyclopedic topic, not a likely searchable term. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Computer hardware, for which I would consider this a plausible search term. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to computer hardware, which lists components such as the power supply, keyboard, peripherals and so forth. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to computer hardware as above. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to computer hardware per above. Daask (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 08:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuck scholarship → Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not refer to anything called a "Fuck scholarship" or that might be referred to as such. The closest is saying Government funding helped finance Fairman's scholarship. The book is an instance of scholarship on the word "fuck", but that doesn't make it a logical target. I suppose this could be retargeted to fuck, which discusses the academic study of that word, but I don't think "____ scholarship" is a very plausible search term in general, since that term is used more often to refer to scholarships.

Google gives no relevant results for "fuck scholarship", six results (all of them porn) for "fuck scholarship" fairman, and zero for "fuck scholarship" "word taboo". Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BJAODN-worthy... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhh... delete? This wins the award for "weirdest redirect I've seen in a while". Absolutely implausible search term. firefly ( t · c ) 08:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny thing is, I stumbled on it after creating my own weird "fuck" redirect. (I promise it makes sense if you read the target article.) If these ones I've nominated are deleted, guess I'll be net-negative on number of "fuck" pages contributed to Wikipedia, which I think is a good thing? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Honestly, I thought that this redirect would lead to an article that discusses pornography. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a media title. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not saying we should keep it, but it refers to scholarship around the word fuck. It's not some sort of BJAODN madness. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 07:43, 1 July 2021 (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 retaget to Abigail Cowen and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abigail Cowen → Fate: The Winx Saga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • No longer a redirect so not in scope for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Abigail Cowen (actress) → Fate: The Winx Saga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Abigail Cowen(actress) → Fate: The Winx Saga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was incorrectly CSD'd by BilCat (talk · contribs) with rationale, Subject not covered in redirected article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding two similar redirects. Worth noting that all three have article content in their histories. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Someone looking for an article on an actor is unlikely to be satisfied by an article on one show that they were in, especially when the search feature can provide a more holistic and dynamic set of possible pages, and especially when the article about the show has minimal content about the actor. (For the third redirect, there's the additional rationale of this being an implausible typo.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, this becomes more straightforward now. Of the two that are still actually redirects: Keep the first as a very plausible ((r from unnecessary disambiguation)); delete the second as an implausible typo. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, meant to say retarget the first to Abigail Cowen. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note (almost?) identical article content exists in the history of all three redirects, as well as at Draft:Abigail Cowen, before deletion (if that is the outcome here) it is important that any required merges and/or history merges are carried out. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first two, delete third with typo - assuming she is not notable enough for her own page, it's because her only major role was in Winx. So, someone looking for her is likely to be satisfied with this alternative. If and when her career becomes notable, she will have her own page and this will be resolved. Even if it's atypical, I think this promotes the purposes of WP ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, does this include the third redirect (which has the additional issue with its punctuation)? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited by response to clarify, thank you. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first, delete others. The second and third were created as an attempt to circumvent the redirect. She does have a draft article that's mostly waiting for her to have a second or more significant role to meet WP:ENT. There are no other Abigail Cowens to warrant the actress disambiguator AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first two as plausible search terms, delete the third. BD2412 T 18:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Sorry for the mess I've created. I primarily wanted to clear out Abigail Cowen so redlinks could be added to articles which linked her name, as the redirected links were being deleted. Anyway, I've reviewed Draft:Abigail Cowen, and it now clearly meets GNG. I've thus moved the draft to mainspace via page swap. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've struck Abigail Cowen from the nomination as it is no longer a redirect. Pinging those who have commented before that was done @BD2412, AngusWOOF, El cid, el campeador, Tamzin, and LaundryPizza03: Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixing typos: @BD2412 and El cid, el campeador:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Abigail Cowen (actress) to the article now at Abigail Cowen as a ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). No opinion currently about the redirect with the typo, but my comments about (history) merges remain valid. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget 2 to Abigail Cowen. Delete 3 as an error in disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2021 (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.