The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was procedural close. This would require Independence Day (United States) to be moved to Independence Day, so this would need to be an WP:RM. I'd caution against requesting that move though, there is a snowball's chance of it being successful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Independence Day → List of national independence days  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: / ] 

I personally think that Independence Day (United States) should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All international calendars (not country-specific) list July 4 as the holiday for "Independence Day". Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The USA is not the world and in countries that have an independence day the local one is almost always going to be primary topic. Looking on google just now, for me in London the primary topic is Independence Day (1996 film). Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 5 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! 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Stick Productions → Michael Douglas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Searching online, I was unable to find any evidence that this is the name of Michael Douglas's production company, and found some unrelated organizations by the same name. Delete unless evidence demonstrating that Douglas does have a company by this name can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the company is actually Bigstick Productions, Limited (in one word); it was incorporated on November 24, 1969 and there are several notable newspapers and trade papers that mention the company (spelled properly). Most Michael Douglas books/biographies also talk about it. I'm not saying the name was prolific and deserves a Wikipedia entry of its own, but I feel that it certainly warrants a redirect to Michael Douglas.--Fallingintospring (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bigstick Productions redirects there and there are several mentions of it, and Big Stick is a plausible alternative. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible misrendering of the name. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:11, 5 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 to Too Much Water. ✗plicit 23:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Too much water → Hyponatremia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Could equally refer to a Flood or other water-related problems. I think deletion is the correct course of action here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Could have a number of meanings, and not worth creating a synonym-only DAB page over. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget per Mlb. I think sometimes a redirect is so bizarre that no one thinks to see if it has any other viable target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Looking at this and similar search terms (excess water, excessive water) I find topics like Water–cement ratio, Water hog, Water intoxication and Polydipsia (excessive thirst) at the top of the results indicating this is hopelessly ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Mlb. I have no idea why I didn't find that in my searches, but I didn't. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The phrase in question is too ambiguous. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could refer to... anything water-related. Like overdrafting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Too Much Water I'm surprised no one noticed that we already have an article with this title. Just slap an R from miscapitalisation template on it. Mlb96 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous, could refer to hyponatremia, Water intoxication, Water hog, and maybe even Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. dudhhr_Contribs 05:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, Pokemon ORAS was actually the first thing that came to mind when I saw this nom. Unfortunately, it isn't even mentioned on the page. Mlb96 (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with hat per Mlb96. dudhhr_Contribs 00:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Mlb96. - Eureka Lott 14:34, 8 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Memecoin → Cryptocurrency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. As far as I'm aware, "memecoin" refers to cryptocurrencies started as jokes, such as Dogecoin (among others). In the absence of an article about this phenomenon in particular, and given the absence of relevant content at the target I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation, although an intermediate solution could be to add DUE, relevant content at the current target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and could probably put together a page for memecoins in general once this redirect is gone. Another solution is is someone adds a memecoin section to the main Cryptocurrency page.EpicJuiceTime (talk) 21:44, 10 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, defaulting to disambiguate at Persian Sea, with no prejudice against speedy renomination nor against someone uninvolved reverting me and closing this themself. As the filer, I am obviously WP:INVOLVED here, and this is too complex a discussion to generally be appropriate for a non-admin close, but this has been open for almost three months, last relisted a month ago, a week older than the next-oldest RfD, so something has to be done. If this close just serves to get the attention of someone else who reverts me and closes it themself, great. For now, I have written a DAB, along the lines of what A Contemporary Nomad suggested, as the lowest-common-denominator compromise. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 11:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Persian Sea → Persian Gulf  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Persian sea → Arabian Sea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Persian Sea redirected to Persian Gulf from 2006 to 2010, then to Arabian Sea till late 2019, then back to Persian Gulf. Persian sea has redirected to Arabian Sea since 2012. The discrepancy appears to be related to the lesser-known twin to the Persian Gulf naming dispute, with some Iranians using "Persian Sea" to mean "Arabian Sea"; but others seem to use it as a synonym for "Persian Gulf". Google results show that it's not a very often-used term, unlike its cousin in the naming dispute, "Arabian Gulf"; to the extent that it is used, I don't see a clear winner between it meaning "Arabian Sea" vs. "Persian Gulf."

My inclination is that these should both point to Persian Gulf, because in a body of water's name, the place name is more relevant than the type of body. I think the average person hearing "Persian Sea" would think of the Persian Gulf, just like you'd think of the Gulf of Mexico if someone said the "Sea of Mexico". However, this is a weak preference. What's most important is that these point to the same thing. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Due to the history of nationalistic POV-pushing on this topic, I would suggest that, whatever the outcome here, the redirects be fully protected. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 07:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• persian sea can redirect to Persian Sea (historical) .it is mistake to redirect to persian gulf. 09:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)

  @Basp1: can you elaborate? We don't seem to have an article on a historical Persian Sea, which I take to mean a body of water that is neither the Persian Gulf nor the Arabian Sea. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. It doesn't appear that any one use is more prominent that the others. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Arabian Sea, with a hatnote to Persian Gulf. While I can understand the confusion, from reviewing the materials at Persian Gulf naming dispute I see that if any body of water is labelled "Persian Sea" it's what Wikipedia refers to as the Arabian Sea, while the Persian Gulf is sometimes labelled "Arabian Gulf". In other words, the sea is always a sea, and the gulf is always a gulf (the reverse of the consistency that Tamzin identified). Or in other other words, the naming dispute is always over what the gulf should be named after: Persia or Arabia (or a number of other things, among them Britain because of course), and while some people might confuse the nomenclature of sea vs. gulf, that is much less historically significant. I agree that whatever is decided, these redirects should be at least semiprotected. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Arabian Sea per Ivanvector. Some form of protection is needed, too. Tol | Talk | Contribs 15:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a really complicated issue and I find myself agreeing with both @Tamzin and @Ivanvector (although I have a small note on Ivanvector comment, I will post it in his talk page later though). I tried researching the issue by browsing Google Scholar and reading the sources that were posted by @Basp1 and (now blocked indefinitely) @HistoricalNameisPersianSea and... honestly? I feel more lost now than when I've started. So I thought I would present my findings and why I don't necessarily lean to either redirecting to the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea.

Firing up Google Scholar and browsing up to 30 results pages by searching 'Persian Sea' I've noticed that almost all search results are using the Persian Gulf in the title with the 'sea' keyword being used in the title or body like for example: "Analyses of the Persian Gulf sea surface temperature". But this alone doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist right? Obviously Google Scholar would present relevant mostly-recent scientific papers. Wanting to be impartial here and to put myself in @Basp1 + @HistoricalNameisPersianSea shoes I figured perhaps when they mention that it's a historical term then it would be a niche thing perhaps mentioned in Persian and Arabic sources in historical contexts or some islamic medieval sources for all we know. So that leaves us with reviewing the sources posted by @Basp1 and @HistoricalNameisPersianSea during their WP:WAR edits...

→ Down the rabbit hole: It seems that out of perceived urgency to WP:RGW @HNiPS wanted to present the Persian Sea as an alternative name in the article introduction (Diff) and then subsequently changed the article name by using the redirection we're discussing here (Diff), both seems to be built around a main source, which is http://www.persiangulfstudies.com/ a self proclaimed "institute of Historical, Geographical, Geopolitical and Strategic Studies of the Persian Gulf". And specifically this article titled: Makran Sea/Gulf of Oman. From their About Us page the "institute" raise some concerning red flags and I'm not only referring to their neutrality, but some 'odd' remarks as well: Aryan Races have been the first noble dwellers on the green earth to settle in this land and make true subjects to God.^? and Persian Gulf since ancient civilizations, due to lack of culture in Arabian Peninsula, always was an essential and Inseparable part of Iran... which strike me as eerily similar to some remarks @HNiPS wrote while editing which makes me question whether it's WP:Advocacy? and if @HNiPS was promoting the conspiracy theory website. Regardless, even the article they have used lead us to nowhere with the whole redirection fiasco, and the article seems to confuse the Gulf of Oman with the Arabian Sea which looks like a pattern as well (So should we make Gulf of Oman a third option?^/JK).

Finally, I agree with @Tamzin and @Tol that whatever the outcome is, some form of protection is needed for the redirection pages. It looks like @EdJohnston have just protected the main article as well. And sorry for the wall-of-text y'all it became my habit :p — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe Arabian Sea should be redirected because the body of water officially is Arabia sea . the big problem is that historically in persian and Arabic text and deeds it was called persian sea (Bahre fars=bahre Ajam) and some text called it macran sea until 18 century. and the Turks call it Oman sea so only this historical facts should be written and told to readers of the Arabian sea . if this have been done then not necessary to redirect to any other page . reading persian text or Arabic text by google is not correct and you should not judge the article by google translate the sentences that you thing is not reliable or 'odd' remarks in that article infact are mentioned from medieval geographical Arabic text book and it is history text not for any judgment. but the researchers should know the background of the name of [[Arabian sea] we should not Censorship or omitting the historical issues and facts is not the work of Wikipedia 00:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basp1 (talk • contribs)
• I originally wrote this in reply to A Contemporary Nomad on my talk page but this belongs here. I'm going by the Persian Gulf naming dispute article, which describes various historic names that different cultures have assigned to various bodies of water around the Arabian peninsula since antiquity. I have no interest in trying to "settle" the dispute, that's not Wikipedia's purpose, and I'm just assuming that the articles on the bodies of water (Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, also the Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and Indian Ocean come up in this) are appropriately titled, despite all of those bodies of water having had different names in the past. Basically, I looked at the gallery of maps in that article for any appearances of "Persian Sea" or "Mare Persicus" (many of the maps are Latin). Those are:

• File:Basra-ps64.JPG: "Persian Sea" marks what we call the Arabian Sea
• File:Map of persia.jpg: same as above
• File:Persian(IRAN) Empire 1747.jpg: same as above
• File:Asia_in_the_shape_of_the_mythical_winged_horse_Pegasus..jpg: this one has a Mare Persicum (Persian Sea) and a Sinus Persicus (Persian Gulf), as well as a separate Oceanus Indicus (Indian Ocean), but it's not clear what bodies of water are being represented since the map is rendered in the shape of a horse. (Unrelated: Two Medieval Monks Invent Maps)
• File:Amsterdam1685..jpg: this one has Sinus Persicus for the Persian Gulf, and Golfo di Persia for the northern part of the Indian Ocean that we describe in Arabian Sea, as well as a separate Mare Arabicum. This one is strange because "Golfo di Persia" is in (I think) Italian while everything else on this map is labelled in Latin.
• File:Detailed_map_of_Asia..jpg: same as above except Golfo di Persia is Mare Persicum here. On this one it kind of looks like Mare Persicum includes the Gulf of Oman while Mare Arabicum includes the Gulf of Aden.

Those are all the ones in that gallery that have a body of water labelled Persian Sea or Mare Persicum, and the body of water labelled is always what Wikipedia describes as the Arabian Sea. It is never, not once, used to label the Persian Gulf - the gulf is occasionally labelled a sea or mare but never the Persian sea. It could be that Arabic maritime terminology doesn't distinguish between a sea and a gulf in the same way that western European languages tend to, but I can't comment on that.

I know this is WP:OR but it's all the evidence I can come up with for where the redirect should point. The many historical names for the other bodies of water are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector I think you misunderstood me I'm not against redirecting the articles to the Arabian Sea nor am I interested in settling the matter either.

As for the maps if I'm not mistaken 1 2 3 4 could also be referring to the Gulf of Oman. And I'm pretty certain that this one File:Amsterdam1685..jpg is pointing at the Gulf of Oman. This is also consistent with the article used by the WP:WAR parties that specifically points out that the Gulf of Oman was called the Sea of Makran and the Persian Sea although that website is WP:QS but it does give us a glimpse on what the nationalists argue for. Excerpts from the article: 'Mokran Sea (Oman sea) is located in southeast of Iran which, in fact, is the continuation of Indian Ocean. It is limited to Iran’s coast from north and to Arabia Sea and Oman from south.' 'There are about 10 ancient maps from Greeks, which named the Mokran Sea and Persian Gulf together as the Pars Sea. But after Arabs raid to Iran, and because Iranian have lost their previous political powers, many changes have been made in geographical names of Iran’s Sea' This part was also copied directly from the article and posted in the introduction. And here the article author points out that writers and researchers should use the name in reply to Arabs nonsense about "South of Persian Gulf"^?: However, given the fact that the most coast of this sea is located in Iran and great civilization such as Shahr-e SoKhte, and Jiroft, which were from second millenary B.C and located here, so it is worthy to get its real name “Mokran” and writers and researchers should use this historic name in reply to Arabs' nonsense talking about south of Persian Gulf.

@Ivanvector: The many historical names for the other bodies of water are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think anyone suggested that or brought it up if I'm not mistaken. As for drawing connection between the maps and the redirect being WP:OR I do agree. But most importantly doesn't this bring the Gulf of Oman into the confusion as well? Before ending my comment I just wanted to stress again that I'm not taking a position in this debate and in fact was actually leaning toward @Ivanvector argument solely for the gulf-sea naming issue but I also wanted to be skeptic toward the nationalist position which I think the closer have to take into account as well. It could be that Arabic maritime terminology doesn't distinguish between a sea and a gulf in the same way that western European languages tend to. I'm pretty sure Arabs did distinguish between Ocean محيط - Sea بحر - Gulf خليج - and even Bay جون. For example Medieval Arab historians referred to the Persian Gulf as Khaleeji-Al-Ajam (Gulf of the Ajams) Ajam means foreign but also came to refer to Persians specifically. The Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean was called Al-Bahr Al-Akhdar (The green sea) and the Atlantic Ocean as Muheet Al-Dulmat (The dark ocean) Muheet also means 'never ending reaches'. But I'm not sure what Arabic let alone classical Arabic has to do with this argument or the English Wikipedia article names? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic terminology matters if it could cause confusion in its translation into English. For example if these words all translated into basically the same word in a foreign language then it would make sense that translating back into English would cause confusion as to which Persian [body of water] the name refers to, among speakers of the foreign language. I agree that does not appear to be the case here. As for the Gulf of Oman, you're right that several of these maps include it in what they label "Persian Sea", but none of them apply the label to just the Gulf of Oman, so I still think Arabian Sea is the better target.

The idea that the entire area has in the past been referred to as one body of water named "Persian Sea" has some merit: it essentially follows the Greeks' naming of everything from the Red Sea through to the Persian Gulf and much of the maritime route to India as the Erythraean Sea, though I don't think that's a suitable target either as it's about ancient Greek geography and doesn't mention Persian influence at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a disambiguation page? Persian sea → Persian Sea → Persian Sea (disambiguation). List the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, and the Erythraean Sea articles with a short description. And a hatnote to the Persian Gulf article? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 18:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with disambiguating is lack of information at the possible target articles. That is, we can generally see that several different bodies of water have been called "Persian Sea" in history, but there's little discussion of it on Wikipedia other than passing mentions, quotes in historical bios (e.g. Qatif mentions it in a quote which is clearly referring to the Persian Gulf), and things that SPAs have edited to articles like Gulf of Oman without any sourcing. An ideal solution perhaps is to create a set index article encyclopedically discussing the situation, with any reliable sources we're able to find. I'm wary of the "Persian Gulf Studies" source - I think there's some good info there but I also think it's clearly holding an Iranian nationalist POV. If we can find a better variety of sources like that, then we could be on to something. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't see much of a difference between disambiguating or going WP:SIA here. A disambiguation page might have the benefit of not needing to find sources and leave that to the destination pages, much like the situation at the Arabian Gulf page — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that's kind of my point: most of the appearances of "Persian Sea" in articles that we could disambiguate are currently entirely unsourced. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. Persian Sea seems like a perfect candidate for a disambiguation page, listing all possible meanings of the name, with Persian sea redirecting to it. Bazonka (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As helpful as A Contemporary Nomad's and Ivanvector's research has been, I think looking at ancient maps was a distraction. This clearly concerns a national-political dispute, probably the Iran–Saudi one. We don't need to make Persian Sea into a disambiguation page because ancient people who didn't really understand the geography used their terms imprecisely. Everyone here is clearly using Persian Sea for the Arabian one; let's just retarget there, tag it from {{R from alternative name}} or maybe {{R from non-neutral name}}, protect the redirects, add a hatnote pointing to Persian Gulf, and be done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the first, retarget the second to Arabian Sea per Ivanvector. Ideally, we could add this name to Arabian Sea#Alternative names, which will both improve the article generally and help prevent this from coming up again at RfD down the road. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @BDD: I think you mean retarget the first (which currently targets Persian Gulf), keep the second (which currently already targets Arabian Sea)? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thanks. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Persian Gulf (or rather not Arabian Sea). There's no easy answer here: even scholarly research can't help (as editors above note) unless you read English, Arabic and Persian and understand the local context. At the heart of this is that Arabs won't say the Persian Gulf in the same way that the French won't say the English Channel, but with more enmity. Farsi Wikipedia's article for Arabian Sea is دریای_عرب [fa] (Arabian Sea), and دریای فارس (Persian Sea) redirects to خلیج فارس (Persian Gulf). On the other side of the waters, in Arabic Wikipedia, بحر فارس (Persian Sea) redirects to خليج عمان [ar] (Gulf of Oman). This would indicate that in neither Farsi nor Arabic is "Persian Sea" used to mean "Arabian Sea"; a translation from Farsi is likely to refer to Persian Gulf; a translation from Arabic is likely to refer to Gulf of Oman. Take your pick. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From the earlier discussion, I recall that the Gulf of Oman is only ever called the Persian Sea when it's viewed as part of the same body of water as what we call the Arabian Sea (i.e. Persian Sea refers to both concurrently). I'm sure this doesn't help anything. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Too late, but adding my vote just for the record, in case of any future Rfds. I was about to enter the below but then found the Rfd missing. Jay ^(Talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Ivan and Nomad that we are not looking at settling of the naming dispute. Rather we can be consistent with different enwiki pages claiming "Persian Sea" for themselves. Disambig per Nomad and Bazonka: Persian Sea to Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman. Retarget Persian sea to Persian Sea. Jay ^(Talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: once this Rfd is settled, also make consistent with Persian Sea, its equivalents Pars Sea, currently redirecting to Gulf of Oman (which has no mention), and Fars Sea, currently redirecting to Persian Gulf (which has no mention). Jay ^(Talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think adding a hatnote in the Arabian Sea article is suitable in this case... A WP:HN is used either to explain a redirection or to provide a more specific disambiguated article suggestion, or to resolve confusion in article title. Neither of which I think applies here. The article have multiple redirects, and as me and Ivan were discussing: I don't think most people would confuse the Persian Gulf for the Arabian Sea. And even if we were to represent the Persian Sea as a historical alternative name, the body of water also have other alternative names with re-directs like the Erythean Sea. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 15:25, 5 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 speedy deleted per WP:G6 since this was meant as a temporary page to facilitate a page swap. When these come up, I almost always merge the history with the other page being swapped, in this case Salsa verde (Mexico). However, this history includes an Italian salsa verde, so it wouldn't match up. Luckily there is no overlap between the history on this page (2006–2007) and the history at Salsa verde (created in 2015), so I can put the history there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Salsa verde/TEMP → Green sauce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This might be a straightforward error from a page swap, but it has a history which is odd. Delete, or if the history really needs to be kept, retarget to Salsa verde. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:20, 4 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 delete. ✗plicit 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Man cream → Semen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Granted I haven't checked the Urban Dictionary but I don't think any reader will search for Semen under "Man cream". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually think it's a plausible search term, but too ambiguous with various creams commonly used by men for beauty or health reasons. A synonym-only DAB would probably be OR in this case, and there isn't even a Wiktionary entry, so delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:15, 5 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 delete. ✗plicit 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upper crack → Intergluteal cleft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't think a buttcrack is separated into an upper, middle and lower crack. I'm not sure human biology supports this division of anatomy or if anyone would search Wikipedia for "Upper crack". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if we felt that UrbanDictionary term were worth creating a redirect for, I don't think we have a suitable target. Something obesity-related, probably, not just the article on the "buttcrack". So, delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:41, 4 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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stinky crack → Anal hygiene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't think this is a likely search term on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely search term, and strictly speaking not about the same thing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or I was thinking it could plausibly refer to a geological feature; the best I've found is Stinking Creek (Campbell County, Tennessee). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That being said, my Google results mostly turn up articles on anal hygiene, so maybe this is a valid search term. Those results are peppered with articles on how to identify crack cocaine by odour, but that seems like a stretch. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that I appreciate the laugh I had thinking of you doing a Google search for "Stinky crack" and looking through the results? The things folks on Wikipedia do to be sure a deletion nomination is valid is impressive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 6 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.