Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 9

Delete The article doesn't mention anything about Rock On The Net Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - not mentioned on target page. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Rock On The Net is actually the name of the website that hosts this chart. I'm not too sure that's enough to call this a likely search term, though. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jimmy Shields was previously at Jimmy Shields (footballer) as an unnecessary disambiguation for a misspelled redirect to William Haines (Jimmie Shields is the correct spelling of Haines's longtime companion). Otto4711 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfectly reasonable alternate title; even if it is unused on Wikipedia, since the article was there for a while it may be linked externally. This link appears to do absolutely no harm so there is no need to delete. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rogerb67 - documents a page move, may have incoming links. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Robofish. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOSMED → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)

MOSNUM → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Delete – Recently created cross-namespace redirects that save the typing of one colon (over MOS:DP, MOS:MED, MOS:NUM). Poor cost-benefit ratio and per consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 6#MOSDABRL. I suspect these are being created because of the existence of MOSDAB; this is older and has been discussed before so is listed separately. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are very few links to these three redirects. Furthermore, they could perpetuate misuse among new editors. +mt 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to keep project clean of cross-namespace redirects. No significant page history. No significant internal links. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Cross-namespace redirect that saves the typing of one colon (over MOS:DAB). Poor cost-benefit ratio and per consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 6#MOSDABRL. Note this is not a recent redirect, and was discussed for deletion previously at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 3#MOSDAB, however I suspect it is contributing to the problem of editors adding other similar MOSFOO links over MOS:FOO links; deletion may discourage that behaviour. I am hoping that the consensus for MOSDABRL will exist for this link too. Rogerb67 (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete – There are almost 40 valid links to this redirect, so this "cost-benefit ratio" is actually weighing-in on the "keep" for this one. On the other hand, allows lazy non-standard linking among new editors, and it is a cross-namespace redirect that may confuse a regular Joe if he is looking for something else. +mt 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Special:WhatLinksHere/MOSDAB and the previous deletion discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing cross-namespace redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Stifle (above). 40 or less backlinks can easily be removed. Heck, I'll start myself. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 20:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to keep the project clean of cross-namespace redirects. No significant page history (just versions of redirects). I've just cleaned up all the links to this redirect: the only ones left are pages that say things like "list of cross-namespace redirects" or "I'm going to nominate MOSDAB for deletion" etc., except for User:ST47/MZ, a list of files of which I don't know the purpose so I left the link as it was. For most of the pages I edited, it wasn't really necessary: they looked like discussions where they said WP:MOSDAB a bunch of times and then got lazy and put MOSDAB a few times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –reviewing contributor's history, there is a propensity for creating occasional redirects, but no obvious interest in military, though the intended target might also have been Metal Storm (video game), but even so, delete as this only seems to be a weak attempt to capture a typographic mistake. WurmWoode^T 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to DAB – Rational by WurmWoode seems sound, particularly since there are several other items on Metal Storm (disambiguation). A redirect to the DAB page could work as well, but it's an obvious typo. +mt 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible misspelling/typo, in the same way Metla redirects to Metal. Redirects from misspellings appear to be acceptable per Wikipedia:Redirect, and this is an easy-to-make typo, especially when speed-typing. I'm uncertain as to what the editing habits of the redirect creator has to do with the nomination... if I try to find something and see the need for a redirect, I'll create a redirect, even if it is outside areas I normally contribute to. -- saberwyn 07:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausible typo. Retargeting to the disambiguation page would be possible, but bear in mind that 'Metal storm' redirects to Metal Storm, so 'Metla storm' should probably go there too. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible typo and do not redirect to DAB, per Robofish. If we wish the reader to arrive at the DAB first we'll make "Metal Storm" be a DAB page; either way, variants such as "Metal storm" and "Metla storm" should point to "Metal Storm". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]