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 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Person Shooter Zato → First-person shooter#Recent innovations: 2006  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a redirect to a now deleted piece of content from this article, also "Second Person Shooter Zato" isn't even mentioned at all in the article as of now. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. Jay 💬 13:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OB(oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide binding)-fold → OB-fold  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

probably won’t be typed — Karnataka 19:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note that I haven’t CSD’d this because I have a pending RMTR to move the article from Wikipedia namespace to mainspace — Karnataka 19:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related comment: I just updated the redirect's target from Wikipedia:OB-fold to OB-fold (as well as updated this discussion to show the redirect targets OB-fold instead of Wikipedia:OB-fold) to avoid an erroneous WP:G8 speedy deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not per nom since redirect length is not an issue in cases such as these, but since the purpose of the words in parentheses is apparently to define what "OB" means, which is essentially stating/typing the same thing twice. However, on that note, I can see the plausibility of redirects such as Oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide binding-fold or (oligonucleotide/oligosaccharide binding)-fold targeting the target, but am choosing not to create them myself. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it seems the redirect's creator originally created an article at this title, but then shortly after performed a WP:CUTPASTE move to change the article's title: That content is currently at OB-fold, the target of this nominated redirect. For this reason, I do not see the edit history of the nominated redirect as needing to be retained. (However, if this redirect is kept, there should probably be a history merge to OB-fold to ensure edit history is not on both pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The nominated title might be an error, but it's not unambiguous enough for me to speedy delete it under G6. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry what I meant by "won't be typed" was that not many would type OB and then expand on it in brackets to search it, not that it is lengthy — Karnataka 05:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I misread. (Was in a bit of a hurry in that moment.) Striking out part of my comment. Steel1943 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's a pretty clear-cut case of deleting as malformed. unless i'm missing something, a missing space before the parentheses should be enough cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: Missing spaces are actually very common in chemical–based titles; However, the redundancy of typing out an acronym and then defining it is not. Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's cursed and makes my grammar bones go ouch, but fair enough. still, delete and do not keep as redundant and full of redundancy cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NURALIZA oSMAN → Nuraliza Osman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Created in error and moved shortly after; we don't need WP:UNNATURAL redirects from titles entered with caps lock activated. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only way this typing would be possible is if the user had caps lock on, and then held shift only when there should be an actual capital letter. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. There was no support for the deletion nomination. The templates may be deprecated. Jay 💬 18:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Test0 → Template:Uw-vandalism1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test1 → Template:Uw-test1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test2 → Template:Uw-test2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test3 → Template:Uw-test3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test4 → Template:Uw-vandalism4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test5 → Template:Uw-block  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test6 → Template:Uw-vblock  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test7 → Template:Uw-voablock  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test1a → Template:Uw-delete1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test2a → Template:Uw-delete2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test3a → Template:Uw-delete3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test4a → Template:Uw-vandalism4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test-n → Template:Uw-test1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test0-n → Template:Uw-test1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test1-n → Template:Uw-test1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test2-n → Template:Uw-test2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test3-n → Template:Uw-test3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Template:Test4-n → Template:Uw-vandalism4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This "set" of templates redirects to 6 different user warning templates. These should all redirect to the same set, or be deleted. Current setup is unhelpful. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The "test1a", "test2a" series of warnings was made to customize a message to people who tested in article space by randomly deleting portions of text rather than inserting random words so having the redirect to a separate set of uw-templates was a deliberate choice. While widely used then, I believe the newer templates have become firmly entrenched by the RecentChanges patrol. I have no problem with deprecating or deleting these if they have fallen into disuse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fieari even if deprecated. There is no way of knowing how many still use them by subst-ing and deleting the templates would disrupt those warning messages for little discernible benefit. Redirecting the previously extensively used templates to their successors is a cheap service. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm fine with depreciating them, that's whatever, but they should NOT be deleted or retargeted, as they are in use on many many user pages, and should be kept intact for historical reasons if nothing else. Don't break things for tidyness sake, and don't make more work for ourselves for no necessary reason. Fieari (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't all usertalk templates be substituted anyway? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Should be" and "actually are" are two different things. Fieari (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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! 07:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station → Runswick Lifeboat Station  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The lifeboat at Runswick was always Runswick Lifeboat. It was never Runswick Bay Lifeboat. All information previously contained in Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station has been relocated. I would like the page Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station to be deleted, as it is of no further use, and I believe all links have now been directed to Runswick Lifeboat Station. Ojsyork (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Argument for deletion is sound in my view. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a {{R from move}} the article was at this title from 2019 until about 3 weeks ago. There are also multiple sources describing the lifeboat as being at Runswick Bay, including RNLI (the article uses both "Runswick" and "Runswick Bay"), Tees Valley Museums, Art UK and The Nothern Echo. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I understand that the article was created in error at "Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station", and now has been correctly moved to "Runswick Lifeboat Station". But, looking at the redirect afresh, its target is a page about a Lifeboat station in the village of Runswick Bay, and as such I think the redirect is acceptable. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Delete I took some time researching the name of the lifeboat station before renaming the page. All images show 'Runswick Lifeboat' written on the boat, never 'Runswick Bay Lifeboat'. I also referred to old maps, and the village too was always Runswick. Even when the Runswick lifeboat station was closed in 1978, and Staithes reopened, the new station took the name 'Staithes and Runswick' Lifeboat, NOT Staithes and Runswick Bay Lifeboat. The only OLD reference in the area to 'Runswick Bay', was to the Runswick Bay Hotel.
  BUT - it is the case that the village seems to be morphing from Runswick to Runswick Bay. Indeed, the remaining non-RNLI content of the 'Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station' page from which I have split content, has gone to 'Runswick Bay Rescue Boat'. If the place is called Runswick Bay from now on, then it's not my place to argue. The village page on Wikipedia is 'Runswick Bay', but contains a comment that some of the older village signs still say Runswick.
  It is interesting that some of the reasons for KEEP, above, may be as a direct result of an incorrect Wikipedia page. My reason for deletion of 'Runswick Bay Lifeboat Station' page was to try to eliminate more of these errors continuing. Ojsyork (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether the term does or doesn't originate with a Wikipedia error (which seems unlikely to be the case for all uses) it is now a plausible search term. Redirects do not need to be correct to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. I understand this title originated from an error on Wikipedia, but it existed for a significant amount of time, and during that time it is plausible that someone created an incoming link to it that we should not break unnecessarily. Tag with {{R from move}} and {{R from incorrect name}}. This isn't an unusual situation. Daask (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Daask and Thryduulf. Fieari (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 was no agreement on a primary topic of Orange County, California. There was no support for the status quo as well, hence retargeting to OC#Counties. Jay 💬 12:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oc county → Ocean County, New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Search results for this are mostly about Orange County, California. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "OC" refers to Orange County, California; "Oc county" is used to describe Ocean County, New Jersey (the only Ocean County in the U.S.) Best, Castncoot (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For "Oc. Co." or "Oc. County", do you mean that "Oc." means "Ocean" ? -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Orange County, California and add a hatnote. Per the nom, the search results are overwhelmingly for the county in California (despite the tautology). Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Orange County, California Clear primary topic. I get some hits for other Orange Counties but not any for Ocean County, so I'm not sure about the need for a hatnote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate to OC,CA; OC,NJ; Orange County, New York (where OCC is from, not Cali); and Orange County (disambiguation) -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Most of the search results that I see are not necessarily to be interpreted as redundant acronyms. Instead they refer to things like the "OC County Government" or "OC County Clerk" meaning the county clerk of Orange County, California with "county clerk" being more-or-less the job title. In this case, these shouldn't be regarded as examples of "OC County" as a subject at all. This could support the target of Ocean County, but given the ambiguity in how these uses could be interpreted, disambiguation seems better. Daask (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I might accept OC (county) as a redirect to somewhere but that's not what this is. Orange County, California is not the target for any redirect of "OC" or similar, and Orange County does not assert a primary topic for "Orange County"; neither does OC#Counties assert a primary topic. It's ambiguous, and/or badly capitalized. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to OC § Counties, as is appropriate for ambiguous titles. I think it's an acceptable {{r from miscapitalization}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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 14:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Halloween Cup → List of figure skating competitions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention in target. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been added to the target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and make a redlink at the target so it encourages article creation. Currently it is a self-redirect and has no information other than the country - Hungary. Unfortunately, so is the condition with some (or several) other entries in that list. Jay 💬 18:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:REDYES to encourage article creation and remove a circular link. Fieari (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. There was support for keeping the redirect provided the target mentioned the term. One participant was willing to add in a sentence, and was reminded 10 days later, but there have been no additions to the target. The redirect may be recreated if content is added in the future. Jay 💬 15:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ragg tuning fork → Tuning fork  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

that's apparently some brand that produces tuning forks. not mentioned in the target, doesn't seem like there's anything reliable regarding it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it is a brand but from what I can tell it seems to be one of, if not the, most notable manufacturer of tuning forks with at least two apparently reliable sources discussing it in depth [1] and [2] so there would be no verifiability issues with adding a mention. Whether a mention would be due or not I don't know, but I can't say for certain it wouldn't be. The redirect is getting suprisingly many views (over 100 this year), at least some of those will be because it's linked at rock gong but whether that's responsible for all of them I can't say (if the redirect is deleted that link must be updated). Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  weird place to put what's effectively an ad (or mistaking "ragg" as being part of the name), but i won't question it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target and the creator pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Based on sources linked here, it does appear to be a notable in Europe, and seems similar to the redirects utilized in Category:Redirects from brand names. I would be happy to edit in a sentence to tuning fork as well about well-known manufacturers, if needed. Shotgunheist ^💬 15:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no mention of "Ragg" at this time. If a mention is added to the article, feel free to recreate the redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Utopes. Thryduulf's first source is native advertising. I appreciate Shotgunheist's offer to add to the article, but I'm wary of adding brands to articles on their industry without putting in the effort to ensure it is reasonably comprehensive and well-sourced. It's not a quick task. Daask (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 03:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 Untitled Kendrick Lamar song → Watch the Party Die  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is getting absurb. Same spirit as Untitled Kendrick Lamar song RfD; already named. Roasted (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong keep this is getting hundreds of hits a day, it's unambiguous and unquestionably useful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for this. Unlike the "Untitled Kendrick Lamar song" RfD, there are no other pages this can link to, its not ambiguous. What's more is that its target doesn't have a title, it literally is a 2024 untitled kendrick lamar song. It's a useful redirect that gets a good number of hits ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is notable for being untitled. The target's current name is apparently WP:OR that can be cited, and is not the name the song's artist chose for the song. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. The article discusses the "untitledness" of this song: "media outlets referred to the untitled song as "Watch the Party Die"". A7V2 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 03:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 Untitled Kendrick Song → Watch the Party Die  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Same spirit as Untitled Kendrick Lamar song RfD; already named. Roasted (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The target is an unnamed 2024 song by Kendrick. "Watch the Party Die" is just a line in the chorus not a name. So this is accurate and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my argument in the other RfD and Thryduulf. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is notable for being untitled. The target's current name is apparently WP:OR that can be cited, and is not the name the song's artist chose for the song. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and arguments at the "2024 Untitled Kendrick Lamar song" discussion. A7V2 (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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. ✗plicit 03:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Kendrick Lamar song (2024) → Watch the Party Die  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

In the same spirit as Untitled Kendrick Lamar song RfD; already named. Roasted (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above - the song is unnamed ("Watch the Party Die" is just a line from the chorus) so this is accurate and unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my argument in the other RfD and Thryduulf. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target is notable for being untitled. The target's current name is apparently WP:OR that can be cited, and is not the name the song's artist chose for the song. Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and arguments at the "2024 Untitled Kendrick Lamar song" discussion. A7V2 (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SLSB → Capitán Germán Quiroga Guardia Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguity between this and Jakarta Enterprise Beans#Stateless Session Beans was pointed out in Special:Diff/1183640947; in addition, there is Notre_Dame_University_Bangladesh#School_of_Life_Science_and_Biomedical_(SLSB). 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig there is also Sri Lanka Savings Bank, Société lyonnaise des schistes bitumineux (mentioned extensively at Les Télots Mine, I think it's a former operator but I'm not completely sure) and the entry at Association of Luxembourg Student Unions#Great Britain may or may not warrant an entry on the dab page. Sierra Leone Standards Bureau is the primary topic for me on Google but I can't immediately find any mention here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Daask (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. Draft provided. There's no mention of "SLSB" at Jakarta Enterprise Beans#Stateless Session Beans: see MOS:DABABBREV. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).