December 12

See Encyclopaedia Britannica

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete.Thryduulf (talk)02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See Encyclopaedia Britannica →Romani language(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete - Nonsensical redirectAgainst the current (talk)20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Page history is a little tough to follow, but it looks to me like somebody's joke from 2008 that got preserved as a redirect after a move. Obviously nonsensical. An argument could be made for a retarget toEncyclopædia Britannica, but even that seems a little silly.--Fyre2387^{(talk •contribs)}21:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not relate to the target. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. --BDD (talk)00:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense.Weihang7 (talk)01:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not helpful as a redirect to Encyclopedia Britannica, and definitely confusing if we redirect it anywhere else.Nyttend (talk)12:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Uroerythrin

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete perWP:REDLINK.Thryduulf (talk)02:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Uroerythrin →wiktionary:Special:Search/uroerythrin(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

A redlink would be more useful. This is a chemical relevant to medical conditions, such asRheumatism. A redlink would be more useful, unless there is a better place to target this.Ego White Tray (talk)14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redlinking to encourage article creation makes perfect sense here.WilyD09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Batttle of manila

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasSnow Keep(non-admin closure).Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Batttle of manilaBatttle of manila →Battle of Manila(links to redirect •history •stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Should probably be deleted; has the dubious honor of being the only redirect on Wikipedia, of all the "Battle of X" pages we have, that assumes people will spell battle batttle and can't be bothered to capitalize Manila.CarniCat (meow)06:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible tttypo, no rationale for deletion.WilyD10:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Per Willy, plausible typo. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387^{(talk •contribs)}21:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. -Presidentmantalk ·contribs (Talkback)21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no real rationale given for deletion, but not an utterly unreasonable typo.Against the current (talk)15:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two plausible typos don't always combine to make a plausible typo. Are users going to make two errors at once? The pre-RFD hit stats don't convince me that this is being used by anyone except bots.Nyttend (talk)12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. With 10-20 hits/month consistently, it's clear to me that this is getting more than background noise usage (2-3 hits/month).Thryduulf (talk)19:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.