Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 5

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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Britney Spears's forthcoming studio album → Britney Spears (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Shakira's Upcoming Album → Shakira (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Shakira's Upcoming album → Shakira (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Upcoming Christina Milian Album → Elope (album) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete These are very general and vague names that could always be changing and moved. While redirects for someone's "fifth studio album" will also be the same, these redirects do not have that same certainty. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sexually abusing → Sexual abuse (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Unnecessary redirect to grammatical subform of the phrase no pages link here Little Professor (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect. The redirect is appropriate as a variant of the title, relating the verbal form of the action to the noun form. B.Wind (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plausible search term. –Grondemar 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per B.Wind and Grondemar. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea verily → O RLY? (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Though I don't think it should be deleted, redirecting this to O RLY? doesn't seem correct, as also stated on the talk page. Anyone have any suggestions as to where it should redirect to? œ^™ 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why shouldn't it be deleted? If there is no article to which this is a natural redirect then the correct thing is to delete it, not try to find something to redirect it to. The question to ask is "Is it likely that anyone will search for this, and if so what will they probably be looking for?" and the answer is "No, it is not likely, and in the unlikely event that they do it is not obvious what they will be looking for". Conclusion: delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term? You really think so? I figured it was a relatively popular phrase. Google certainly turns up a lot of hits for it. I would think some people would want to know what these archaic 'Shakespearean' phrases mean. Either way, it's probably something more suited to a dictionary anyway. -- œ^™ 13:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlike the shorthand title of the target, there appears little or no significant coverage of its use in reliable sources. Redirecting it to Yes, affirmative, or verily is not an option as the former two are disambiguation pages and the latter one is a redlink. B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect page moved to 875P, nothing more to do. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 875p → list of Intel chipsets (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I created this redirect today, and neglected to capitalize the "p". In order for links to work, the capitalization has to be correct. Once it is deleted, I will recreate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juventas (talk • contribs)

• I've killed two birds with one stone by moving 875p to 875P for you. For future reference you could have done this yourself (or requested it via WP:RM). Also, pages that you've created yourself in error are eligible for speedy deletion criteria G7. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]