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. There is a hatnote at the target directing people to Rock for other uses. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rocks → Rock (geology) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

If the word "Rock" is so ambiguous that it's a disambiguation then without any particularly compelling reason I don't see why the plural is considered any less ambiguous. In fact while this redirect is listed as a redirect from a plural, it isn't as "Rock" and "Rocks" takes you different places. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock (geology) and Rock music are the most important topics for "Rock" as both are vital articles. Although "Rocks" is also ambiguous, it only refers to one vital topic and several that are less important. Peter E. James (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, although the talk page would be a better place to discuss this if you didn't think that being WP:BOLD was appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What else would you want when searching for 'rocks' besides the rock (geology)? We can put a {for} tophat thing.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

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 all four speedy-deleted as long-overlooked but patent vandalism. The edit history makes clear that this was a pattern of vandalism by a single anonymous user. Rossami (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skeyuill[edit]

• Skeyuill → Michael Howard (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Incredibull → Michael Howard (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete - implausible redirects originally created as attack pages. Peter E. James (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trashograph[edit]

• Trashograph → The Daily Telegraph (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Telavivagraph → The Daily Telegraph (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete - POV, neologisms. These were created as stubs then redirected when they should have been deleted. Peter E. James (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

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 by User:MuZemike under criterion G5 - content created in violation of a ban or block

• Carmen Minor (pornographic actress) → Jack Napier (pornographic actor) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion. Implausible redirect. No obvious reason to redirect from one person to another. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A cursory google search suggests that they are two different people who have both starred in the same film on at least one occasion and have been seen at at least one party together. I can find no suggestion of why Ms Minor's name should be redirected to the article about Jack Napier. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - It was created by a block evasion account. - J Greb (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.