Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2020.

Patricia Celan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article at Afd. Consensus was for delete. No mention of redirect being specified. scope_creepTalk 23:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through all the pages I made/contributed to that were nominated for AfD and requested they be redirected if they get deleted, I figured it was fair game. Sorry. Newbie here. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Given all the arguments that it was just about a pageant/"1EVENT" despite the other biographical info, I figured maybe she just fits into Miss Charity BC) --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is content about her at the target and while there isn't enough to write an article about her, her name is a plausible search term. @Scope creep: if an article gets deleted at AfD (or otherwise) redirects to it can be speedily deleted (see WP:CSD#G8) so you don't need to nominate them here unless there is an issue that will remain if the target article is kept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I'm trying to figure out the reason for this nomination, other than seeking total victory in a deletion debate, and I seriously can't figure out any. The article was deleted as a "1event", meaning the person was only notable in association with one thing, Miss BC, which naturally means people searching for her, would want the pageant. --Rob (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This discussion was closed as speedy-keep by user:Xannir, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wiki2008time, the redirect's creator, who has commented above. I am WP:INVOLVED with this discussion but feel reopening is the best course of action here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Uncivil sockpuppet aside, Rob makes a good point. No valid argument was made to delete this redirect in the nom. The search term is relevant to the target article and apparently getting a decent number of hits. I see no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap. --Micky (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Demo-1[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. There's a clear consensus to disambiguate the Demo 1 redirect. I see no reason to prolong this discussion further. I also retargeted Demo-1 to the new dab page. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects should point to the same target, or else be deleted. Given the broadness of this term, while targeting these to a disambiguation may be possible, I'm currently leaning toward deletion and letting search results take care of it. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate – When people will type "Demo-1", they will not only looking for SpaceX Demo-1 mission, but also for the first demonstration project of something. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: draft provided at Demo 1, and Demo-1 should redirect there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per mom and Soumya-8974. Also not that it really matters Special:WhatLinksHere/Demo-1 says "Demo-1" is not used by any articles - so sould not lead to any issues. OkayKenji (talk • contributions) 22:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Soumya-8974 makes a good point. The term is too vague to begin with. --Micky (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Snow Dab. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Legalese[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Legal writing#Legalese. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem right that these two similar redirects target different pages, but I'm not sure which one is the right target. Consider this a neutral nom. Sharper {talk} 19:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree that the legal writing subsection should be the proper redirect, but man, these two pages could use some better interlinking, because they seem to both provide definitions for "legalese" in different contexts. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Glossary of group theory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Restore article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of group theory was moved to Group theory terminology in 2015. That article was then AfD'd. The result of the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group theory terminology) was "redirect to Group theory". That page has nothing looking like a glossary. So, delete Glossary of group theory, or perhaps turn it into a redirect to List of group theory topics? Tea2min (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps restore the page to an older version from 2008 that actually looked like glossary (as suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group theory terminology)? – Tea2min (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to the older version that looked like a glossy per nom, reasonable suggestion. --Micky (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore good glossaries are a beacon of hope in the Wikipedia landscape. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nomographic function[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Nomogram. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget agree with Captain Galaxy. We need a bot that will automatically revert any redirects made if they are not mentioned at the target. Of course this would be an issue with redirects made for typos though. --Micky (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2020 virus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Redirect most. There honestly wasn't much of a consensus for what to do for 2020 virus between redirection and deletion, but since there weren't any clear arguments for keeping the status quo, redirecting to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seemed preferable to deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to SARS-CoV-2. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose - I started the covid 19 virus redirect. I suggest, even though this term does contain the word "virus", when people use the term they are almost always referring to the disease, not the underlying virus that causes it. As per WP:COMMONNAMES these redirects should remain, as is.
So, Soumya-8974, did you go to every article where these redirects were used, and count up how often, by context, the content seemed to imply that the writer actually meant readers to go to Coronavirus disease 2019 and how often the writer meant them to go to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2?
Why would you make your recommended redirect target be SARS-CoV-2, when that is itself a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2? Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started the covid 19 virus redirect. I suggest, even though this term does contain the word "virus", when people use the term they are almost always referring to the disease, not the underlying virus that causes it. As per WP:COMMONNAMES these redirects should remain, as is.

Why are you WP:MERCYing in here? Also, the phrase "covid 19 virus" will always refer to the coronavirus that caused COVID-19, regardless of ignorant people.

Why would you make your recommended redirect target be SARS-CoV-2, when that is itself a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2?

I want to retarget all of them to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, I am too lazy to type the full title. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am too lazy to type the full title. Why type it all if you can copy-paste? ;) im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "2020 virus" (too ambiguous), retarget "Wuhan coronavirus" and "Covid 19 virus" to SARS-CoV-2, and keep "COV-19" per pandakekok9's rationale. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda weak delete 2020 virus, while some people might be searching for this particular virus (despite there being no evidence that it's the one and only 2020 virus, a claim that's WAAAAAAAAAY off), it's still ambiguous with other viruses, most of which are already known and some of which might still come to common knowledge this year. Also keep COV-19 per pandakekok09 and Tenryuu, and retarget the other two to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 per nom, which is what they're referring to, and could potentially be helpful to readers by directing there. Regards, SONIC678 18:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Retarget 2020 virus to SARS-CoV-2, because this redirect could be helpful to people who don't know what the virus is called and SARS-CoV-2 is not the only one but the most famous "2020 virus". --DRIZZLE (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is in real danger of being a WP:TRAINWRECK, though I see fairly solid consensus for retargeting Covid 19 virus and Wuhan coronavirus to the virus article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I did not have nominated overwhelmingly big amount of redirects, so why the WP:TRAINWRECK is evoked? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget all to SARS-CoV-2 per DrizzleD. They are all plausible search terms and redirecting all to SARS-CoV-2 could help educate many people. --Micky (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Assmar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Assmar

Speed limits in the United States of America by Jurisdictional distinctions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I see no reason to prolong this discussion, per the keep !voters. This redirect doesn't meet any of the conditions at WP:R#DELETE, and is created from a pagemove, which we should avoid deleting. Note that "unlikely search term" is not enough justification for deletion. If anyone wishes to object this closure, feel free to revert, but I don't see any benefit at all prolonging this RfD to seven days. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not grammatically correct and an unlikely search term Needforspeed888 (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a {{R from move}} that is unambiguous, still getting hits and not in the way of anything else. Absolutely no benefit will arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and K4. — J947 [cont] 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep still getting hits (although they could be cosmic rays). Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.0[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP term. A search in DuckDuckGo and Google shows no results. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

American Corona[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term. I haven't seen any RS sources using this term to refer to the coronavirus pandemic in the US. The title of this redirect may also refer to the beer, or the places in the United States which are named Corona. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Allah, S.W.T[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to God in Islam. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Floydian protests[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The term when searched in DuckDuckGo reveals no results, while in Google there are 2 results, both of which doesn't seem related to the protests themselves. This redirect got 13 pageviews since creation (2 June 2020), however, which is a lot in a short period. I'm gonna go neutral for now and let others form their own opinions based on policy. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never mind. This is a WP:MADEUP term and should be speedily deleted. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since it is WP:MADEUP, it's unlikely to be searched, despite the fact that sounds fine. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see this being used anywhere at all. Glades12 (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is absurd. Nothing else needs to be said Anon0098 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate that it's in honour of George Floyd but I have not heard anyone use this term and it's not showing up in search results. --Micky (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A. Hitler[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Users are overwhelmingly opposed to deletion and I was also inclined not to delete. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hitler was ever referred as such. Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It really doesn't matter if Hitler was referred to in this fashion, the question to ask is "Is this a reasonable search term that someone might use in order to get to the article on Hitler." I think it is. Redirects are cheap, and there's no reason to delet this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this redirect is silly. The nomination is. He is referred that way when citing him, for example the Mein Kampf article cites Hitler as "A. Hitler" in the 17th item in the References section. His name in this translation of his private will and testament by the United States Government Printing Office is also transcribed as "A. Hitler". There's also a 2010 film which is titled "A. Hitler", though we don't have an article of it yet. So clearly the title of this redirect is used. Another proof that this redirect is useful is the pageview count. This redirect got 33 pageviews since creation (which is 27 April 2020), which is a lot IMO. I advise the OP to withdraw this RfD and speedy close this. (edit conflict) --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to what others have said, his paintings were signed with that name. Passengerpigeon (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reasonable search term that is attested in several sources, including Hitler's own works (such as Vienna State Opera House). Glades12 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

GF protests[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly redirect created by Composemi. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Composemi and redirects. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The "GF" in this redirect seems like a plausible acronym to me. A search in DuckDuckGo shows George Floyd immediately. There are also YouTube videos ([1] [2]) which shortens the protests into GF. The 9 pageview count since creation (3 June 2020) is not bad either. So I think this useful redirect should be kept, not deleted. Note that we discuss redirects based on policy and consensus, not the author of those redirects. Making it the latter is ad hominem and doesn't really benefit Wikipedia. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems a little ridiculous to me. I don't know why we need this Anon0098 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing exactly three groups of google hits for this exact phrase - the current target, OCR errors for "of" and a few uses in sentences about how the writer's girlfriend disagrees with something. The second and third are obviously inappropriate for a redirect so in practical terms this is unambiguous. The uses - I'm seeing YouTube, Twitter, Quora, Reddit, Imgur, and many other forums, local news sites, blogs, etc, etc. demonstrate that this is widespread (uses come from at least the US, UK and Canada) and a plausible search term. All in all it's clearly a useful redirect so it seems that Composemi got this one right. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a legitimate and plausible search term. --Xannir (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know, I think GF is too vague. Honestly my first thought went to gluten-free... I think other search terms are more suitable for redirecting to George Floyd. --Micky (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether other terms do or don't redirect to the protests is completely irrelevant to whether this one should. It's also irrelevant what this could theoretically be ambiguous with - per my comments above the George Floyd protests are the only thing people using this search term are going to be looking for so in practice it isn't vague at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pakistani Federation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect isn't technically inaccurate, as Pakistan does indeed use a federal model, but I have not heard this term commonly used to refer to Pakistan. It is misleading as it leads one to think that it is the official name of Pakistan.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the keep and retarget sides of this RfD make good points. Relisting for further discussion and consensus (which in my opinion is not yet achieved).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Caragdur[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#Caragdûr, where the version of this with a diacritic was deleted. Didn't see this existed in time, or I would have bundled it then. I'm sure this can be speedied, but not 100% for sure what the right criterion is. Hog Farm (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2015 LG ICC Awards[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW and to avoid breaking any external links. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect deleted because the 2015 ICC Awards weren't sponsored by LG Electronics. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This redirect was created from a pagemove in 2018, and has some solid pageview counts from 18 March to 16 June 2020, with a total of 39 pageviews on that period. Pandakekok9 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article was at this title for about 3 years, better keep the redirect to avoid breaking external links. Article explains that it wasn't sponsored by LG, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. 2014 was sponsored by LG, so it's not a stretch, either. Hog Farm (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farm and K4. — J947 [cont] 19:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micericky (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UFN 176[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#UFN 176

Suck my cock[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) TheImaCow (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Fellatio is an inappropriate and touchy subject, a page about it should still exist on Wikipedia. However using this very vulgar slang as a redirect is too inappropriate for Wikipedia and is also extremely silly as nobody when using proper language refers to penises/vaginas as the bad "c word" which is considered among worst of the worst of swear words. The "Suck my c***" slang is more often used as an insult to a person than something said while having oral sex. --Otis the Texan (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find it unlikely that anyone looking for the term "fellatio" is going to use this term to search for it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this redirect was not correctly nominated or listed here, I've now fixed these issues. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:RNEUTRAL and WP:NOTCENSORED apply here, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with vulgar redirects and this one is getting a large number of hits - almost 1 a day on average last year - so it is clearly a search term people are using. The target is directly relevant to the search term so anyone using this to find content about this act is getting exactly where they want to go, demonstrating it is useful. Those who are searching for this because they like looking up rude words or whatever are not inconvenienced in any way and might learn something at the target. It also has not attracted significant vandalism - just once instance in the 9 years since the redirect was created, vs three in the 10 years before that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, I'd say this is the primary topic for this phrase. I'm kinda surprised this isn't a User:Neelix creation. Profane slang, but not censored here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Hog Farm. WP:NOTCENSORED clearly applies here. CycloneYoris talk! 04:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:CENSOR and the popular usage of the term (it's used so much that if I could find sources, I would turn it into an article). Koridas talk? 20:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_17

Leave a Reply