Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 4

The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an very unlikely, to be used redirect. No pages use this redirect. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I must disagree about the unlikely-hood of this redirect; I made it precisely because I accidentally went to it. ~~ This comment was missigned by user:Gwern
• Delete. We shouldn't have redirects just because they are typos. If it is a spelling mistake, fine, but no one would actually knowingly spell it that way. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very strong keep No of course they wouldn't knowingly spell, but there's a very strong chance they'll hit the wrong keys. The creator says he hit the wrong keys, so it should stay, so that prooves it's both plauible and useful. The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for (That last sentence is a quote from policy). If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. Somoene oculd plausibly type this in by accidentily hitting the keys in the wrong order, which a lot of people have problems with.--Serviam (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion." No, That typo is implausible, look tat the name again. The e is shifted 3 spaces, and an extra a comes out of nowhere. Just because one poor user types it doesn't mean we have to create it. "Speedy Deletion" means we shouldn't even be discussing this. happypal (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a user accidentaly types this, he is entitled to create the redirect, because that prooves it's plausible, and thus not a candidate for speedy deletion. We don't pre-emptivly create typo redirects, but when someone accidentily types this and creates the redirecy, it should definitly stay. And the very fact that we are disagreeing makes speedy deletion imposible, it was nominated for discussion, so unless it's deleted here and someone then recretaes it, it can't be speedied--Serviam (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Minor spelling mistake, I'm sure this has been made multiple times. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - redirects are cheap. Anyone who types this in obviously intends to get to the Gamecube article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep (non-admin closure). David Pro (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an unlikely, to be used redirect. No pages use this redirect. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree about unlikeliness. See other comment. ~~ This comment was missigned by user:Gwern
• Delete per above. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very strong keep No of course they wouldn't knowingly spell, but there's a very strong chance they'll hit the wrong keys. The creator says he hit the wrong keys, so it should stay, seeing as that prooves it's useful. The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for (That last sentence is a quote from policy). If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect. Somoene oculd plausibly type this in by accidentily hitting the keys in the wrong order, which a lot of people have problems with.--Serviam (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless an article "Gaemcube" comes up, should be kept. We all make spelling mistakes. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is entirely possible that someone will type 'gaemcube' and intend to get to the GameCube page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. There are no plausible targets given for the redirect Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article; doesn't seem to be a similar enough term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but re-target. Isn't it a physics term used for when water a variable effort on a body? like Wind stress. I would re-target to water engineering. happypal (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it might refer to biological stress caused by lack of water, instead of mechanical stress caused by hydrological action 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whoops, water engineering doesn't exist... happypal (Talk | contribs) 12:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a 2010 film on target page. Creator of page is a likely vandal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The redirect is to a nonexistent section of the target article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Move. If the conclusion is that we keep the page, we should move it at Captain America (2010 film) anyways, and delete the erroneously named redirect?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Happypal (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hello, crystal ball! While there has been preliminary discussion of a possible 2010 film, it is too early to have it as a standalone article. There is no mention in the target; so there's no purpose for the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. David Pro (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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