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 Gulf of Salerno. Deryck C. 21:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Salerno Bay → USS Salerno Bay (CVE-110)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There actually is a Salerno bay in Port Salerno, Florida. Should that town be the target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there's no information about the Salerno Bay in Port Salerno, as far as I can see. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gulf of Salerno per all the many Google Books hits calling it "Salerno Bay" (in particular see [1]) and hatnote for the ship. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gulf per IP. The current "what links here" shows articles where they are discussing other ships who arrived at Salerno, Italy and its bay there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per IP and then hatnote. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 4 June 2016 (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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bluegreen → Bluegreen Corporation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(neelix) reverse the redirect? Microsoft Corporation lives at Microsoft. The only reason I guess this lives at Bluegreen Corporation is that this "blocks" it and someone wasn't WP:BOLD enough to move it over. There's another similar. Nothing wrong with the article of course (well not per se) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to blue-green. Unlikely that someone typing the name of a colour is looking for an article on an obscure timeshare company. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Ivanvector. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to blue-green as the obvious choice. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2016 (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 withdrawn/keep ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Breast absence → Amastia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Declined by User:RHaworth who has deleted quite a few of mine so I probably in my vain attempt at brevity made a cock up of the nom.

A few similar have gone off the Anomie list similarly so I thought this would be a no-brainer, but fair call if there is any doubt. The absense of breasts is not a kinda medical condition. This is a back formation essentially from a medical term to what someone who has a breast obsession might think of someone who hasn't breasts. People who have had a double mastectomy don't have breasts but that doesn't mean they have amastia. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, for the same reason I left this when I did my bulk deletion of Neelix's boobery. For once, this is one of Neelix's breast redirects which actually makes sense. Contrary to what Si says, amastia is the correct term for someone without breasts whether it's congenital or the result of mastectomy ("iatrogenically" is just a fancy way of saying "caused by a doctor"), and "breast absence" is an eminently plausible search term for someone who isn't familiar with the technical term. ‑ Iridescent 22:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Righty ho Keep as speedily withdrawn by nominator. Thanks to User:Iridescent for the second check. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (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 withdrawn/keep ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Armement Air-Sol Modulaire → AASM  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Neelix) now this is where I start to doubt myself. This is exactly what it is called in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE unless I am missing something. What am I missing? Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing that the target is an abbreviation. We don't usually do that. Reverse the redirect? Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. This is one of those cases like NATO or UNICEF where the abbreviation is the WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't a particularly unusual situation when it comes to military hardware; see AMRAAM, TASER or ASALM for a couple of obvious ones which spring to mind. ‑ Iridescent 22:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Righty ho thanks for the second check User:Iridescent Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2016 (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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Heteropurpura polymorpha → Heteropurpura  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Neelix) Not sure. The pic cap has it with exactly these words but it is not in the article text or taxobox otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Taxonomy of extinct organisms can be inexact, but the way the article is now, it looks to be a monotypic taxon. So the genus and the species are synonymous. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valid fossil species. It was listed in the "Species" section of the article, and I've now added it to the taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2016 (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. Been there too, can confirm it's not that hellish. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:You can see Hell from here → Wikipedia:Requests for adminship  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I just made it back from WP:RFA, and I'm pleased to report that I was not able to see Hell from there, which was nice. This redirect is WP:R#D5, nonsense, and it looks like a strange attempt at humor. I believe that is is a bad idea to "officially" advertise that RFA is a "hellish" place, especially since many people are trying to improve the process (eg: WP:RFA2015). I could think of a couple of better targets if we choose to keep it in some form, WP:SNOW being the first thing that comes to my mind. Since it is virtually unused, however, my preference is to delete it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tavix, I have been deliberately staying off of RFA because I did not want it to seem in any way that you WP:CANVASSed which I thought it might seem by my accident. Did you get it? Si Trew (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: not at all unexpectedly, your attempt to avoid drama led to the most drama out of any comment at Tavix's RfA, spawning its own thread there, a thread on the talk page, a thread on the Bureaucrats noticeboard, and I think some commentary on your own talk page, which is well done even for RfA. And yes, Tavix is now among the mop-endowed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I think it pretty unambiguously refers to WP:RFA, since it is a hellish process (less so lately) but it could refer equally to any discussion to improve RFA (those discussions are hellish in themselves), or perhaps to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Or any pending changes-related discussion, for that matter. My point is it's a vague joke which could refer to too many things, and I'm sure it's well intentioned but doesn't really have a place here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am trowling through these Neelix redirects nineteen to the dozen I seem to get a lot of attention at the moment whatever I do so I was trying to stay out of the way, that would not be fair on Tavix. Well done User:Tavix! Thanks User:Ivanvector for letting me know. Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean "did you get the joke" I meant "did you get the admin". Did I not make that clear? The joke's on me as always. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, yeah, by "joke" I'm referring to the "strange attempt at humor" i.e. the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one (I think I know which one you mean). And another editor created eighty thousand of them and I created one and got the blarney for it. I thought we'd moved on from that one. I realise this is irrelevant to the discussion of this particular redirect but I wanted to congratulate Tavix on getting the RfA, truly deserved. I must admit I truly missed your point User:Ivanvector because I didn't see the "strange attempt at humor" in the nomination, which wasn't mine, I just get told off if I put CSD's in doggerel or something so I assumed (not from you) it was another potshot at me. I get about four or five a day, usually. But I get about a hundred very silly redirects deleted a day. Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• i'm wondering if some months into their new role, Tavix might not change their mind about the relevance of this redirect. 23:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Hey, I said the redirect would be gone in less than six months, and it's survived almost five years! I don't really care what happens to this redirect. Harej (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#DELETE #3 and #5, makes no sense and abusive.

(@Tavix: Congrats for your adminship!)

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 Wattle (construction). Deryck C. 21:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wattling → Wattle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Neelix) hmm would this be a reasonable misspelling for Watling (a DAB)? Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY - an equally plausible error for two things. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not WP:XY between two errors. It's the correct gerund of the verb "to wattle". Anything for which it could be a typo can be handled by hatnotes. Retarget to wattle (construction) and hatnote the target {{redirect-distinguish|Wattling|Watling}}. (I think the process of making any of the rest of the stuff on the wattle dab page can't be described as "wattling"; if the verb can indeed apply to wattle-and-daub, then this should just be plain old kept rather than retargeted). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to wattle (construction): Wattle-and-daub links back to that article as it's one component of the construction - see http://www.theroundhouse.org/resources/wattle&daub.htm to read all about it. PamD 09:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget as above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wattle (construction) and add hatnote CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2016 (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 withdrawn/keep ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sothos → Sotho people  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This one's on the edge (Neelix). We tend to have Germans, New Zealanders and so on but not every language you can form this way (I've taken some Lesotho ones to CSD), I am not sure if this makes sense. You could'nt have Irishes or Englands or Spains for example to mean the people from those places. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plural term is used a lot in news articles as with Zulus. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. I took a few to CSD because the target lists the singular and plural in Bantu language but if you say it's fine, it's fine. (I mis guessed as thinking it was kiswahili with another). Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2016 (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 without prejudice against recreation if evidence of his knighting can be found. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Robert Catesby → Robert Catesby  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Hmmm this is probably all right. He certainly was knighted, eventually, but we don't tend to stand on titles at Wikipedia. Is this OK it probably is. (Forgot to say Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title redirects seem to be fairly common (Sir Winston Churchill, Lady Thatcher, Sir Anthony Eden, Sir Alan Sugar, Baron Prescott...), so I'd allow it on those grounds. On the other hand, I'm not sure Catesby ever was knighted: our article doesn't say that he was, and nor does the Concise Dictionary of National Biography (which does list titles: a few entries above "Catesby, Robert" is "Catesby, Sir John"). Nor does the fuller online version of the ONDB mention it. So I'd suggest delete as incorrect title. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Chambers Biographical Dictionary (ISBN 0-550-16040-X, ed. Magnus Magnusson, 1996 reprint) at p. 275 doesn't say that he was, either. Considering that he was "the chief instigator of the Gunpowder Plot and was "shot dead while resisting arrest" according to that, seems unlikely they'd give him a K, even posthumously. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. When I said "he certainly was knighted" I was no doubt thinking of someone else (Sir Walter Raleigh or The Great Gatsby or someone, that's nonsense on my part). Now I should be taken out and shot for that howler. Si Trew (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2016 (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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle of the Bastards → Game of Thrones (season 6)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As with No One (Game of Thrones) below, this episode name is at best unsourced, at worst made up; it's not immediately clear which. Moved from speedy. —Cryptic 09:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These were announced by some German news agency and propagated through multiple news articles: [2] and [3]. It could be translated to "Battle of Bastards" though so I recommend WP:CRYSTALHAMMER on this one. When the English title is officially known, the article will be created proper. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the episode were to fit this title scheme, you might as well call the show "Game of the Thrones". Let's wait it out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should not exist until the episode title is reliably sourced. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:26, 30 May 2016 (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 kept per newly-introduced reliable source. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No One (Game of Thrones) → Game of Thrones (season 6)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As with Battle of the Bastards above, this episode name is at best unsourced, at worst made up; it's not immediately clear which. Moved from speedy. (For both of these, this revert of the target article is enlightening.) —Cryptic 09:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Holding. These were announced by Sky Germany and propagated through multiple news articles: [4] and [5]. They could be wrong after which they can be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one's still showing at their Sky Germany website: [6] open up the schedule (SENDETERMINE) and you'll start seeing entries at June 13. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Should not exist until the episode title is reliably sourced. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No opinion per AngusWOOF. The target claims the episode will be broadcast on 12 June, and the title of the preceding episode was confirmed over a week ago, meaning we're very likely to get confirmation of the real title of this one while this RFD is ongoing. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The likelihood of this actually being the title diminished after this week's episode, seems like someone just making up names based on storylines that were already in swing. Can be re-created if officially confirmed. Calibrador (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Here's the HBO link to confirm the title in English. Nothing yet as of this time stamp. Let's get it deleted and add it later when it is announced. [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Crooked Hillary → Hillary Clinton  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Little Marco (discussion) and Lyin' Ted (discussion) were both deleted. I didn't express an opinion on those, and I don't plan to on this one. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the reasons given for deletion of Little Marco and Lyin' Ted seem to apply here just as well. I also note that when Short-Fingered Vulgarian was deleted, it was explicitly not turned into a redirect. I don't see that Crooked Hillary is any different from any of those (though I suspect that if Trump keeps this practice up, we might soon have enough material for Donald Trump's nicknames for his political opponents...). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Trump using those nicknames beyond the campaign like The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Jargon where he's been using those nicknames for years. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just well needlessly defamatory. I'm sure Mrs Clinton has been called worse and is big enough not to worry about it, but we should worry about it. We don't have Honest Hillary, for example, or Crooked Margaret Thatcher. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nicknames need more notability like No Jack Kennedy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Create Neutral Nominator and target it to User:Godsy. Also delete, probably borderline WP:G10. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous precedent on similar names. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pejorative nicknames for people actually need legs for them to be worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Millerisms → Joe Miller (actor)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Neelix) This is in the hatnote but I am not sure quite why is it OK? There are loads more absured like joemillerizes that I have taken straight to CSD Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget to Miller (surname) This term is used in news articles for Johnny Miller, Reggie Miller, Frank Miller, Arthur Miller, and so forth. There is also a movement called Millerism but it doesn't have a bunch of quotes like how Millerisms is used now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a a real word or notable enough to have its own redirect. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2016 (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. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shelf of Russia → Continental shelf of Russia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

(Neelix) Not sure. Yes it is {{R from short name}} but surely without the "Contintental" it doesn't really make much sense? I mean "Continental shelf" is a compound word you can't kinda just split it like that can you? I have taken others like Shelves of Russia (presumably some kind of Soviet bookshop?) straight to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This just invites confusion. It's not like huge geological formations are the very first thing that come to mind when one reads the word "shelf". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there were plenty worse than this. A load on the Arctic shelves too, redirecting to the Continental Shelf of Russia. Now I am no expert on plate tectonics but since the frozen bit of the Arctic is, in a very broad sense, one massive iceberg or ice shelf it is a bit rich to take it to Russia when bits of it tends to bump into Canada, Greenland, Iceland etc too. It is not as if it is like the Antarctic as a solid landmass. It's essentially a vast ice cube. Total nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it basically refers to the thing it refers to in shorthand. I find it highly unlikely that someone is going to come here looking for information on a particular bookshelf or some such in Russia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Ivanvector. I should also note that Russian shelf also directs readers to Continental shelf of Russia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale of CoffeeWithMarkets. Furniture? Geographical formations? Too ambiguous. Also not sure why this discussion was closed so soon? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doing a google search of the term while eliminating the words "continental" and "Arctic" shows that the results are only about the Russian continental shelf, and the phrase is used by sources in that sense (see: [8], [9], [10]). Surely no one is actually trying to look up furniture with this? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while the term is ambiguous, the current target would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, noting that I could not find any notable Russian shelves of the furniture variety. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:32, 6 June 2016 (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.