Now this one is just plain surreal. Looking at the history, this appears to have started life as an attack page, had four revisions deleted from the history, and then recreated as a redirect. I see not why, but maybe there's a good reason for it. Maybe.  –  iridescent 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Weak retarget to Karl Rove List of nicknames used by George W. Bush#Staff, as proposed by Snigbrook below. This is fairly well documented as a nickname George W. Bush gave to Rove, meant as a compliment rather than an insult. On the other hand, some Bush/Rove critics use this as an anti-Rove meme, so it has an insulting dimension as well- hence, only a weak !vote to retarget. — Gavia immer ( talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to List of nicknames used by George W. Bush#Staff, which Turd blossom and Turd Blossom already redirect to. — Snigbrook 12:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's a better target. I endorse this over my original choice. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete - with prompted searching "Turd Blossom" and "Turd blossom" both list before this. A third redirect to the same target is unnecessary. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Do I really need to give a reason? Anyone using this as a search term is, well, beyond help. Remind me never to click "what links here" again.  –  iridescent 22:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Eivind ( t) 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Feces is NOT a chocolate hamburger! I don't even want to know... Tavix (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Somehow this has stayed up for two years so I don't want to R3 it. I really can't see why.  –  iridescent 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Eivind ( t) 10:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete As per SNOW, it may not fit perfectly but the outcome is quite obvious. Also it might be good to SALT.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 22:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

And another… Nobody is ever going to search on this, nobody is ever going to link to this, etc etc etc.  –  iridescent 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This term was accessed 92 times in December. KnightLago ( talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, I'm glad someone knows how to make the connection that women have tits. ;) Tavix (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • ... and then there are man tits... 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete women and man tits, they don't appear on any non deletion related pages.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There might be a good reason for this redirect. I certainly can't see it. Nobody is ever going to search on this, nothing is ever going to link to this. If anyone's that keen on "bigtits" this isn't the best site for them, anyway.  –  iridescent 22:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it might somehow get around a porn filter and they need their fix.-- King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I created this from a list of things people were searching for. In December, Bigtits was accessed 146 times. See here. Just assuming an average of 100 per month, this term was accessed more than 1,200 times last year. KnightLago ( talk) 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

If you're bringing this up, there's also Big tits (which, rather oddly, points to Great Tit)? Both of these should point to Breast fetishism if they exist at all IMO -- Gurch ( talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Redirect both "Bigtits" and "Big tits" to Breast size. Not exactly the article they were searching for, but wikipedia is not a collection of porn. I'd rather have an "encyclopedic" redirect. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Concur with Redirect(s) per Enric's reasoning -- RCEberwein | Talk 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget per Enric Naval and protect against the inevitable vandalism. B.Wind ( talk) 04:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, come on! Anyone using this as a search term is no doubt to young to know the meaning, anyway.  –  iridescent 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• This term was accessed 620 times in December. See here. Assuming an average of 500 a month, this term was accessed over 6,000 times last year. KnightLago ( talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I created this redirect in 2006 in response to a list of most searched-for red links. Although many of these searches may just be juvenile inquisitiveness, I don't see anything wrong with sending the searcher to a page explaining what the slang pertains to. This may have its benefits: if we take a search like this seriously, someone searching for a term like this may take Wikipedia more seriously. I don't believe it is our role to dismiss what people search for. We should adapt and respond to it. -- Oldak Quill 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Anybody who actually puts "wet pussy" to the search window will get pussy as the first result. No need to have this as a redirect - delete. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Going by this logic, we could delete most redirects and rely on the search engine. I see two problems with this. First, the search engine changes and is not reliable or simple enough for us to depend on it for user navigation. We also do not know what the search engine will be like in a years time and we cannot guarantee that the result for this search will remain the same. Second, redirects exist to provide a concrete link between a commonly searched-for term and a target article. Anyone searching for "wet pussy" will have pussy in mind, not Felis catus. Therefore, between the unambiguity of the search term and the number of searches for the search term, this would seem to be an excellent candidate for a redirect. -- Oldak Quill 10:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep As Oldak well notes, redirects exist to serve the reader; it appears that this one, whatever we may wonder about the puerility of anyone who should enter it, and even as the majority of those who enter it may be non-serious, does. Joe 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• keep per Oldak. flaming lawye r ^c 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete that many snickering school kids want to see whether WP handles the redirect does not mean we should have it. If we want to cater to the lowest element, see whether Fuck or Sex (or Shit vs. Feces) is more commonly viewed to adjust our titles to the demand? No! Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Cat#Habitat, which discusses cats and their dislike for water. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 14:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep per KnightLago. In 2008 6000 people came to Wikipedia for wet pussy. We should not let them down. Giggy ( talk) 01:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete. -- Eivind ( t) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unverifiable Tavix (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is unverifiable and, most of all, unnecessary. Also, this could possibly Redirect to Association football... -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If it is redirected it should redirect to Ba game – which is what Scotland's claim to have invented it is based on – and not to the modern game. –  iridescent 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Also nominating: Who Invented Football

• Delete. -- Eivind ( t) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is just... unnecessary. Perhaps this could possibly Redirect to Association football. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Looking at the RfD before this one, I am somewhat surprised that the originator of this redirect didn't redirect it to Scotland. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Also nominating: Wikiproject aquarium fishes → Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

Recommending deletion as cross-namespace redirects with no incoming links. Stifle ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Eivind ( t) 10:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Strange redirect pointing to one of the few parts of Kampot Province where they actually don't grow pepper! A fairly unlikely search term :) Paxse ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete Concur with Paxse after Google search on phrase turned up 1,580 hits but then saw this: "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 238 already displayed." Looking at those 238 suggested that it was much more like a publicity/placement campaign with many similar sites+sub-pages. -- RCEberwein | Talk 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Kampot Pepper (or perhaps Cambodian Pepper) is probably notable enough for its own article - however, as a redirect to the provincial town, it's a little strange. Kampot is the more likely search term and would come up with more options. Paxse ( talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Unlikely title - only "List of" title with dashes instead of spaces or underscores JaGa ^talk 04:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Eivind ( t) 09:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unlikely search term. Usrnme h8er ( talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Unproper grammar is used in the redirect. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a nagging fear that you intended no irony. 69.212.22.15 ( talk) 21:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

As the redirect name is BOTH an alternate capitalization and plural of the target page (unlike Paper planes), there is less reason for it to redirect to the Paper plane. Instead, it could EITHER get redirected to the M.I.A. song at Paper Planes (song) OR deleted so that Paper Planes (song) can be moved there (with a hatnote about the Paper plane article). IF the consensus is to EITHER leave the redirect as is OR change the redirect to Paper Planes (song), I'd suggest having the page fully protected from editing to prevent any edit wars over where it should redirect to. I'm listing this for discussion as I'm not 100% sure what should be done in this case. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Move Paper Planes (song) to Paper Planes and add a {{for|aircraft made from folded paper|Paper plane}} template to the top. Why have the "(song)" specification on the Paper Planes article if there is no major risk for confusion? Usrnme h8er ( talk) 13:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete & move as Usrnme h8er noted. لenna vecia 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply