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 Retargeted شطرنج to Shatranj and Deleted the rest per nom.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajedrez → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Échecs → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Xadrez → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Satranç → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Шахматы → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• شطرنج → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Skaak → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Echedoù → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Шахмат → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Escacs → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Šachy → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Skak → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ŝako → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Skák → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Šahs → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Šachmatai → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Scacci → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Шатар → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Sjakk → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Şah → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Šach → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ahedres → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Шахи → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cờ vua → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• शतरंज → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Ficheall → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Cög → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ਸ਼ਤਰੰਜ → Chess  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Whole load of WP:RLOTEs to Chess (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Turkish, Russian, Arabic, Afrikaans, Breton, Kazakh, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Esperanto, Icelandic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Latin, Mongolian, Norwegian, Turkish (for "check"/"king"), Czech/Slovak, Tagalog/Cebuano, Ukranian, Vietnamese, Hindi, Irish, Volapük, and Punjabi). Some are mentioned in the body of Chess, some in the body of History of Chess, but I don't believe any are particularly connected to chess (besides being spoken in Eurasia as the game spread). My suggestion is Retarget شطرنج to Shatranj and delete all others. eviolite (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it does seem like several of these redirects do get a not-insignificant number of pageviews, so I'm not so sure. eviolite (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@eviolite Well, the popularity does not matter if it is not suitable per WP:RLOTE. See WP:POPULARPAGE. And There's also the redirect שחמט, which I listed in another RfD discussion thread QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@J947: Oh, sorry didn't notice it 😅. Hope you can forgive me lol. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep any that are mentioned, which shows an affinity with the given language. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: I don't believe that is at all the case for most of those. For example, this is the sentence that mentions most of them in History of chess: Thus, the game came to be called ludus scacchorum or scacc(h)i in Latin, scacchi in Italian, escacs in Catalan, échecs in French (Old French eschecs); schaken in Dutch, Schach in German, szachy in Polish, šahs in Latvian, skak in Danish, sjakk in Norwegian, schack in Swedish, šakki in Finnish, šah in South Slavic languages, sakk in Hungarian and şah in Romanian. This does not at all prove affinity with these languages as the article is just listing them with no elaboration on any in particular, and the entire paragraph is also unsourced. eviolite (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These are good illustrations of how the evolution of the game affected the naming across these languages (and it is a fascinating thing to map!) I have a very low bar for keeping WP:RFFLs as long as no other issue presents itself, given that they are useful for speakers of the language and those studying where the language and the term in question overlap. I recognize that having RFFLs for any random language is indiscriminate, so being mentioned in the article in some form can establish a "line in the sand", so to speak. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My primary issue with that is that the sentence is completely unsourced and therefore arbitrarily listing all of these languages together is a form of WP:OR. They really shouldn't be in the article, IMO, but I guess that's not really a thing for RFD to decide. eviolite (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific guidance is sought about which, if any, individual redirects are to be kept out of this bundled list of 28 that are nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget شطرنج to Shatranj and delete all others per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Giurtelecu Șimleului Synagogue → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Synagogue of Giurtelec → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Synagogue of Giurtelecu → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Synagogue of Giurtelecu Şimleului → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Synagogue of Giurtelecu Șimleului → Măeriște  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Next in the "Măeriște series" are a group of redirects regarding a synagogue. However, there is no mention of a synagogue at the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to the very extensive article that once existed about the village [1], it never had a synagogue, the Jews instead using the temple in another settlement in the area (that temple is described at Northern Transylvania Holocaust Memorial Museum). – Uanfala (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Evocative → Evocation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Evocatively → Evocation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Evokative → Evocation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

When you describe something as "evocative" you don't mean that it summons demonic hosts. In fact, that meaning isn't even listed by the dictionaries I've checked. A soft redirect to wikt:evocative is conceivable, but I prefer we didn't do that for such common words, and there exist a few partial title matches, which deletion will make more accessible via the search results. On a side note, the first redirect gets a few views each day, but most are unintentional: according to the clickstream data for January, 101 of the 136 views for the month were due to a now removed link from one very popular article. – Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Delete 1 and 2 exactly per nom, and 3 as an uncommon misspelling that is ambiguous with the name of a film company. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• De Havilland Pirate → De Havilland Sea Vixen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. There's no reference to this as an alternative name for the aircraft in our article, and a Google search does not immediately reveal that it's ever been used as a synonym. No incoming links. Tevildo (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2022 (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 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bigamy (in Canon Law) → Polygamy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this subject at the target. The article Bigamy (canon law) was draftified after this AfD then deleted. The capital letters of the redirect are wrong.
Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, essentially per the spirit of G8: It's only a clerical oversight that this didn't target Bigamy (canon law); had it, it would have been G8'd when that article was draftified. If there were somewhere valid to point that title, this could make an ((avoided double redirect)), but I don't see such a place. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete consistent with Bigamy (canon law). There's also Bigamy (in Civil Law), by the way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shhhnotsoloud: while we are at it, what do you think should be done with Bigamy (in Civil Law) which also seems to have the same capitalisation problem? Veverve (talk) 10:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would delete that too (bearing in mind there's an aricle Bigamy). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Drawsko (jezioro) → Drawsko Lake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Gwiazda (jezioro) → Gwiazda Lake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dąbrowa Wielka (jezioro) → Great Dąbrowa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Świdwie (jezioro) → Świdwie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Wigry (jezioro) → Wigry Lake  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Hańcza (jezioro) → Hańcza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirect pages have the parenthetical disambiguator "jezioro" (Polish for lake). While they do lead to lakes in Poland, I do not think a disambiguator in a foreign language will be a common search term for readers of the English Wikipedia, and indeed these largely have few pageviews. eviolite (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I agree with the nominator that a parenthetical disambiguator in Polish doesn't make sense in the English Wikipedia. However, the first three of these terms are ambiguous without disambiguation, therefore we should create redirects using our common " (lake)" disambiguator (or even better, since it would preserve and value the initial editor's contribution, rename (without leaving a redirect behind) the existing redirects accordingly). The last three of these redirects do not (currently) need a disambiguation at all, however, if there is a risk that there are other terms making them ambiguous and therefore we might have to disambiguate these terms in the future, we should proactively create " (lake)" redirects for them as well (marked with ((R from currently unnecessary disambiguation))), so that links don't have to be changed again and to catch links when someone would routinely use the WP:Pipe trick for lake names like [[LakeName (lake)|]]:

Drawsko (lake) → Drawsko Lake

Gwiazda (lake) → Gwiazda Lake

Dąbrowa Wielka (lake) → Great Dąbrowa

Świdwie (lake) → Świdwie

Wigry (lake) → Wigry Lake

Hańcza (lake) → Hańcza

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Foreign-language disambiguators are too much of a Pandora's box, outside of exceptional circumstances (like if that disambiguator is sometimes used in English-language sources). Any editor can implement Matthiaspaul's suggestion simply by creating those pages, regardless of how this is closed, so I see no need to move the redirects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "need" to achieve the goal through renaming, (almost) the same effect can also be achieved through a combination of deleting and creating redirects, that's right. The reason I proposed the former rather than the latter is simply because it would preserve the edit history (as small and trivial as it may be in this case). Per our core policy on collaborative editing we are asked to WP:PRESERVE as much of each other's good faith contributions as possible - in this case the original contributor's contribution was faulty so that we have to correct it, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't honour the contributor's good faith attempt to improve this project by creating these redirects. It is my belief that if more editors would try hard to apply the WP:PRESERVE principle under all circumstances where this is possible without creating unreasonable overhead, we would create a more pleasant atmosphere to work in and thereby have more contributors and get better contents. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Moving these redirects would be a violation of WP:MOVEREDIRECT and would misrepresent the edit history. As far as I can tell, D6 created these redirects with the intent of having disambiguations as "(jezioro)" NOT "(lake)". D6 hasn't been around since 2014 so it's unlikely we will get an answer on this, but I decline to assume that a mistake was made, so it is not our business to "fix" these. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Tamzin, Tavix. There's nothing to stop those redlinks above being created. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2022 (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 Glossary of fencing#doublé. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Doublé → Double (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Can't find any indication that this band ever had an acute accent on the e. Suggest retarget to Glossary of fencing#D where the term is mentioned. eviolite (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Glossary_of_fencing#doublé as ((R to list entry)), a refinement of the nom's suggestion. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2022 (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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Brageirac (vila) → Bergerac, Dordogne  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the name of the commune is in the native Occitan, the disambiguator "vila" does not appear to be in English, French, or Occitan (rather Portuguese/Galician/Catalan), so is inappropriate for a redirect. This redirect was created at AFC with the simple reason "native name", which does not explain the disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 12 March 2022 (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. There is no consensus to act, but the double redirect should be fixed as contemplated in Mdewman's comment. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation) → Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer needed - the target is now a set index article and there are no incoming links. Leschnei (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since a set index performs the same function as a disambiguation page, and this redirect can be used to explicitly link to it. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mdewman6. The only reason set indexes are separate from disambiguation pages is overly-rigid formatting rules for the latter, and we cannot expect anyone to predict which of the two a given page will be technically described as. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no purpose remains. Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) has been merged to Twin Peaks (disambiguation)#Utah to resolve the WP:INCOMPDAB issue. The double disambiguation is implausible as a search term, and because the separate page no longer exists it should not be used for linking purposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The doubly qualified redirect is useful only for a wikilink referring collectively to all places called Twin Peaks in Salt Lake County, Utah. No article does that, and it's unlikely that one ever will. Some SIAs do have (disambiguation) redirects, but in this case the target is now a dab section and there is no longer an SIA to target. Certes (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nomination was rendered moot by Tavix's conversion of the target to a redirect (which IMO should not haave been done during the RfD, although I endorse it on the merits). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no incoming links, and target is no longer a disambiguation. Jay (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bypass. This, with double redirect bypassed, redirects to a page that disambiguates the term "Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah)", exactly as advertised. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: are you advocating to keep a double redirect? @Leschnei, Mdewman6, and Thryduulf:, the nomination may need to be relooked since the target is no longer a set index but a redirect. Jay (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The merging of the pages doesn't change anything here; if kept, the double redirect will be fixed by default and bring readers to the place where Twin Peaks in Salt Lake County, Utah are disambiguted. Sure, we could all change our 'keep' votes to retarget to respond to Tavix's bold merge, but I don't see that as being necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly what Mdewman6 said (with a side helping of endorsing Pppery's parenthetical). Any !vote that would result in a double redirect can (and normally should) be taken as a !vote to point the discussed redirect at the other redirect's target. Only if you disagree with the redirect pointing to the second redirect's target is it really necessary to query. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Sorry, clarified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (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) 22:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Almighty (rapper) → Latin trap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned on target. Also WP:RDELETE #10 applies: could plausibly be expanded into an article, translating Almighty which seems to have quite a number of reliable sources. Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's kind of a catch 22. The artist likely isn't worth mentioning at a music genre article without its own article for context, and if it has its own article, no redirect is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Almighty Jay. Jay (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same artist, why would we want to do that? --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty Jay is a rapper who has an article on Wikipedia. I would believe Almighty is not a typical first name, the rapper disambiguation helps in differentiating it from almighty, and the redirect will help the reader find the rapper's page. Whether this rapper is not the same as another artist is not relevant. Jay (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and too vague. Veverve (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why vague? How many rappers are there who have the name Alimighty? Jay (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jay: It can refer to either Almighty Jay or the Ivorian hip hop rapper Almighty (the latter seems to be notable yet has no WP article). Veverve (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So that will be ambiguous not vague. Jay (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2022 (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.