Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2025.

KenTacoHut

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#KenTacoHut

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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I normally wouldn't touch an {{R from move}} page, or a redirect that's this old, but I just saw this WikiProject essay get cited from the "MOS" name, as if it were an actual guideline, in a POV-pushing way. There are very few links to this page. Perhaps we can live without this one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. The solution to an editor using a redirect to push a POV is to deal with the editor in the same way we would deal with them if they had linked to the target directly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Non-MoS pages should never have MoS related redirects (or page names). Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. A WikiProject's style advice is close enough to the MOS that I'm okay with this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I think it's best we keep a clear differentiation between what is and isn't in the manual of style. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    What differentiation between style guidance in the manual of style, some of which applies to specific topics/articles and style guidance for specific topics/articles elsewhere is important to make? Why is making that distinction important? Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    The distinction is that the manual of style is a formal guideline and hence has a higher degree of consensus behind it than individual WikiProjects' advice pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    Some bits of the manual of style are not widely supported by people other than MOS regulars (as evidenced by how controversial capitalisation can get for example) while style advice found in some wikiprojects is uncontroversial. So whether some piece of style advice is found in place A or place B is not a reliable guide to how strong a consensus it enjoys, meaning that enforcing an arbitrary barrier to finding a given bit of guidance based on that seems counterproductive. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, if someone is being misleading about how much buy-in a page has that's on them; realistically speaking I expect this to be helpful for navigation and not misdealing for anyone actually opening the page, which we should do anyway if a guideline we're not familiar with is linked in an argument. Rusalkii (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

Square root of 4

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#Square root of 4

Goon H.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#Goon H.

Tarrasque

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 Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Tarrasque * Pppery * it has begun... 15:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This spelling seems to virtually always refer to the D&D monster. Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 20:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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).

Dig! (website)

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. Probably too specific to be added. Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment if this is kept, hatnotes should be added at Dig! and Digg. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We have no information about a Dig! that is a website. Jay 💬 11:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

Freedom Flotilla Coalition

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 Gaza freedom flotilla (disambiguation). Once the RM closes this will probably be regretted again, but this shouldn't interfere with the RM. Rusalkii (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has at least 3 articles about the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, Women's Boat to Gaza, May 2025 drone attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla, and June 2025 Gaza Freedom Flotilla. I don't believe Women's Boat to Gaza is the primary topic. This redirect is likely to cause confusion. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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).

Coast Guard News

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 23#Coast Guard News

Fatin (307261) 2002 MS4

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 💬 18:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This was a duplicate article created in 2016 and quickly redirected. It should be deleted as it isn't a plausible redirect; the word "Fatin" has nothing to do with this object, which was recently officially named Máni. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete. This redirect was made by a user currently blocked for vandalism. To give some context, this redirect was unwittingly made by someone who saw an IP vandal's edit that purported the name was "Fatin". Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The object was never known or named—unofficially or officially—as "Fatin". ArkHyena (they/any) 22:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

Holding Former Government Officials Accountable for Election Interference and Improper Disclosure of Sensitive Governmental Information

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. Rusalkii (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This can't possibly be a redirect that anybody is searching for. No article links to this incredibly long (and arguably non-neutral) title. The section it redirects to doesn't even reference this slogan(?). It's unclear what this is for other than a way to pad out the categories it's listed in. Grnrchst (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It's the formal name of the executive order. Similar to the formal name of a bill (legislation). I think it is reasonable to create redirects for formal names of these types of things. I could see someone copy pasting the formal name of this into Google, and I think we'd want it to show up. Perhaps the fix here is to keep the redirect, and edit the formal name into the target article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
If the formal name is edited into the target article, then I'd be happy to withdraw the RfD nomination. I was just taken aback by seeing this long name and it not being in the target article. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Added. Although I think that paragraph might now need some more sentences added to it, to balance out how POV towards the Trump Administration it currently is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: This is the name of the executive order that is the subject of the target article section. It is directly quoted and cited in the target section. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Myceteae and Novem Linguae. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

What tнe⃗ ♯$*! D⃗𝞱 𝓌Σ (k)πow!?

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. Rusalkii (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Weird incorrectly formatted redirect left over from a page move from 2006. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:EAE7:F9A3:95C1:FDBF (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as this is an implausible mis-styled version of What tнē #$*! D̄ө ωΣ (k)πow!?. The "real" version is something a reader might plausibly copy and paste into the search bar. It strains credulity to think someone would take the time to painstakingly enter the wrong version, and that anyone who might do so would not have access to the normal or stylized renderings to find the article they are looking for. Use of the mis-styled version would obviously be inappropriate in article text and should be readily identifiable as an error. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible typo Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is exactly how the cover is styled, with arrows over e and D, not overlines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
    Where are you seeing the arrows? I just see a bunch of square boxes Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
    There is a higher-resolution version of the image at which clearly shows an arrow above the D and (slightly less clearly) an arrow above the e. If you're seeing square boxes then you are looking at a text rendering but lack the proper font support. As I'm not sure which character set these are from I can't point you in the direction of a font that will solve this unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. For what it's worth, the arrows are at least supposed to render above the correct character, using U+20D7 ⃗ COMBINING RIGHT ARROW ABOVE. However, I find it exceedingly unlikely that anyone is going to go through the immense hassle of rendering all this with unicode trickery, just to enter in the search box. On top of that, there are multiple arbitrary and possibly inconsistent choices in the rest of the title, like using a musical sharp instead of a normal hash (which someone would have to know about WP's technical restriction to even think of), using U+1D7B1 𝞱 MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF BOLD ITALIC SMALL THETA (why bold?), and using a regular "k" instead of U+1D458 𝑘 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL K. So the claim above that this is "exactly" how the title is styled is objectively wrong. It was at its original title for a couple years, so that at least gets a reasonable pass as leftover from a page move. But the article was only here for a day before being moved again to its current title, so there's no reason to keep this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely implausible search term. If someone really goes through the trouble of typing in each unicode character to search for the page, not even utilizing the correct styling, please let us know and I'll gladly change my vote — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C
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).

List of sexualities

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 lists involving both gender and sexuality, Retarget List of sexual orientations to Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation, No Consensus on List of sexualities. There was no support to keep List of sexualities as is, hence retargeting to the nomination proposal of Outline of human sexuality as a better target. Jay 💬 18:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation is a better target for orientations in specifically, and Outline of human sexuality for the rest. LIrala (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep the first one as is. The current target describes sexual orientations in depth and detail, talking also about various classifications of sexual orientation instead of just one, so I feel like it would be more helpful to a reader. No comment on the rest. --Plantman (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
1) Keep – Agreed with Plantman. 'Outline of human sexuality#Sexual orientation' is a brief section which even uses the MainArticle template to link to Sexual orientation; it'd be nonsensical to link to a section when there's a much more robust main article. Retarget as proposed per Trystan's rationale. After all, this is a list. Still hold on (2) as 'orientation' is just one component of the very broad idea of 'sexuality'.
2) Retarget to Human sexuality. Oppose keep because Outline of LGBTQ topics is comparatively overly broad for such a search. Oppose move to section on sexual orientation because 1) 'Sexuality' combines many more facets than simply orientation and 2) even if it didn't, we have the article 'Sexual orientation'.
3) Delete. Without a very good excuse, there's no reason to have 'List of X and Y' and 'List of Y and X' when we can simply have redirect 'List of X' and 'List of Y'. If someone wants genders, they'll type 'List of gende' and have 'List of genders' show up – likewise for sexualities and for sexual identities. If 'List of genders and sexualities' were an actual article, then sure, but these make zero practical sense. What's worse is that with three items to choose from, we have so many possible permutations. If there's strong consensus against deletion, then Keep, as because 'gender' is along for the ride, 'Outline of human sexuality' fundamentally does nothing for one entire half of the redirect, and additionally, 'sexuality' as mentioned in (2) is much more than orientation.
4) Same as (3) (and again, sexual identity is much more than orientation).
5) Same as (3).
TL;DR: Oppose all of these. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 24#2019 Coahuila Challenger 604 Crash

Miércoles

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 Names of days of the week#Romance languages. Rusalkii (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

All names of weekdays in Spanish, fails WP:FORRED. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment. Such redirects exist for other languages too (I checked a few for German and French), and variously point to the corresponding day of the week article (or a section of which discussing other languages), but there's also potential discussion at various sections of Names of the days of the week. There's also some inconsistency. For example, Dimanche is a newspaper with a hatnote to WP:ONEOTHER thing, and no dab page including the weekday. I'm inclined to say that these sorts of redirects should be kept since we do have specific discussion of them, but there's probably some room to make everything more consistent here, with targets, and possibly better disambiguation. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget Sabado (with or without accent) to Names of days of the week. The other redirects are at least mentioned in their targets, so could either be kept or repointed there. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Names of days of the week#Romance languages, where they are specifically mentioned. I agree with I am bad at usernames that the current targets fail WP:FORRED. Duckmather (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

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. Anyone is welcome to either improve the article or send it to AfD. Tagging BD2412, who asked to be informed when this was closed. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This was a redirect to Disparate impact, the subject the case in question was supposed to be about. However that target has absolutely nothing about the case - nor should it, as the case didn't happen. I therefore restored the original article and prodded it, but the article creator re-redirected it without making any comment or any addition to the target regarding it. Therefore this is a redirect that is purposeless and should be deleted. My PROD text: Case that was not heard/was withdrawn before hearing. Was previously redirected to a topic related to the case, but was not covered there at all. Likely should not exist altogether, therefore.. Prod2 by Bearian: Settled out of court, this has no precedential value. It would likely confuse a lay person. The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. We don't have lingering redirects for cases that may have gone to SCOTUS. lethargilistic (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore and sendwithout prejudice to AfD as a contested PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
    • Updated my recommendation in the light of BD2412's comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a bit backwards as to how a PROD normally works because the prodder restored the article specifically to prod it. It was reverted back to the status quo, which in this case is a redirect, not an article. The author and only significant contributor of the article was the one who both originally redirected it back in 2021 and just now, so it's clear that no one at this point is in favor of the original article still existing in that form. -- Tavix (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore this version to work with as an article. Even though the case before the Supreme Court was withdrawn, this was a notable case in the Ninth Circuit, styled as Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. BD2412 T 22:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
    • I would be fine with "restore and try to WP:HEY it". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
      • @The Bushranger, Thryduulf, and Jay: Whoever is keeping an eye on this, please let me know if/when it is restored. I have some sources and will work on it in fairly short order thereafter. BD2412 T 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore and AfD per Thryduulf per Bushranger. Jay 💬 17:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

COASTER

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#COASTER

Stinko

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 💬 02:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Stinko was originally created as a redirect to Alcohol intoxication with the edit summary slang term referring to alcohol intoxication/drunkenness. It was subsequently retargeted to Lake Washington with the rationale that it's mentioned there. However, the mention is noting that the October 5, 1963 issue of the Post Intelligencer referred to the lake as "Lake Stinko", which seems awfully trivial. Stinko (slang) still redirects to Alcohol intoxication, but the term isn't mentioned there currently. Should it? -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  • In my google results the closest thing to a primary topic is mentions (in the use–mention distinction sense) of the slang term, which would suggest a soft redirect to wikt:stinko. However "closest thing to a primary topic" is not the same as "the primary topic" as there are uses of the slag term, the names of multiple characters and various other things that don't come close to being primary (or even notable in at least most cases, although characters by this name are mentioned at G.I. Carmen, Lloyd in Space and True and the Rainbow Kingdom). One topic that was not present in my search results was Lake Washington so that target is definitely wrong. In Wikipedia search results, the meaning Wiktionary gives as secondary ("of poor quality", defined elsewhere as the stronger "awful" and "abysmal") seems to be more common so alcohol intoxication as a target (even if it were mentioned) isn't the greatest either. On balance I think soft redirect to Wiktionary is probably best, but this preference is weak. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete in favour of search results which links to wikt in the sidebar. No objection to soft redirect to wikt either though. ⇌ Synpath 12:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to wikctionary, delete, or something else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia isn’t Urban Dictionary. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete both. It appears there are several plausible meanings but none are highly probable and not clearly more so than the others. As Synpath points out, readers are likely best served by search results which turn up a few mentions in articles as well as Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and other results in the sidebar. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

Dr. Dr.

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. Anyone is welcome to edit the disambig page as appropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that searchers are looking for a double doctorate described at Doctor (title) than they are any of the other entries at the disambiguation page Doctor Doctor. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom and add a hatnote back to the disambiguation page. There are presently non-notable artists and songs by this title, if they become notable in future this can be reevaluated at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and add to the disambiguation page, both double doctorates and medical doctors (a doctor doctor, a real doctor, a medical doctor) -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
    • "Dr. Dr., title of a person with a double doctorate" is there already. Medical doctors aren't titled "Dr. Dr." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
      • But they are sometimes informally referred to that way, when distinguishing between PhDs and MDs -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Either bundle Dr Dr with this, or apply the same outcome to it when this RfD is closed. Jay 💬 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 17#ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI