August 11

Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor

• Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-WindsorHenry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor →Prince Henry of Wales (links to redirect)

Protected double-redirect that is not in use, and a cumbersome title that is unlikely to ever be in use. [ mad pierrot ] 22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll pull the ol' "redirects are cheap" card on this one as it might catch people using search engines looking for his full personal name.youngamerican(wtf?)13:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect and retarget- good point. But does it seriously need to be protected? And the double redirect should be fixed. [ mad pierrot ] 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've already fixed the double redirect (dumb me forgot to look at the target before my previous comment). I'll leave it to an admin not involved in this discussion to finalize/unprotect.youngamerican(wtf?)14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;--

• Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;--Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;-- →Xkcd (links to redirect)

Unlikely search term, only appeared in one strip.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat •^{(Many otters •One bat •One hammer)}18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although, I really like that this redirect exists... It's pretty funny. [ mad pierrot ] 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm guessing you saw it already TPH, but this had anAfD less than four months ago where the result was to merge toXkcd and keep it as a valid search term, albeit unlikely. The character, despite being mentioned once, is one of the more popular jokes from the comic. Besides, he's mention atXkcd#Characters. ~Amory(user •talk •contribs)05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While RfD isn't necessarily bound to respect an editorial preference from AfD, this character is currently mentioned in the article as one of the better-known references from the comic. Redirecting the character's name is reasonable.—Gavia immer (talk)14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phaeoannelomyces werneckii

• Phaeoannelomyces werneckiiPhaeoannelomyces werneckii →Hortaea werneckii (links to redirect)

Misspelling of the right redirectPhaeoannellomyces werneckii, I know they are allowed in redirects but create confusion in taxonomy :)Aytrus (talk)15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Misspellings are definitely allowed perWP:REDIRECT.GraYoshi2x►^talk15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perWP:RfD#KEEP as single "L" vs. double "L" variants occur with high frequency when it comes to misspellings. The redirect would also point to the article containing the correct spelling, making it much easier to navigate than trying to find the correct spelling in the search engine.B.Wind (talk)03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upn.com

• Upn.com →UPN (links to redirect)

URLs are not a valid reason for a redirect, as perWP:RCAT.

EDIT (12 Aug 09) - Nominate for deletion, if I didn't make it clear before

Also, add to this list, for the same reasons and by the same user, the following:Tbs.com,Sbs.com.au,Bell.ca/tv,Cinemax.com,Starz.com/channels/encore,Starz.com,Sho.com/tmc,Family.ca,Bell.ca,Themovienetwork.ca,CBC.ca,Ibm.com,Sky.it,Tnt.tv,Rai.tv,Bbfc.co.ukSme3 (talk)02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not comply withWP:REDIRECT as the nominator stated, and I'm sure most of these URLs would fall underWP:ADVERT as well.GraYoshi2x►^talk15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - what aboutwww.google.com andwww.yahoo.com? Don't they qualify as well? [ mad pierrot ] 05:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not really. OnBoyhere's talk page I mentionedHotels.com as an acceptable use, since the company is defined by the web site, and the company actually has "dot-com" in its name. Google and Yahoo are similar, as isMonster (website), which has been marketed both as "Monster" and as "Monster.com". However, the URL's I listed are ancillary pieces (marketing arms) to the businesses - which arenot an online companies. I'm not saying it violatesWP:ADVERT as GraYoshi2x suggests, I just don't see any case in which someone would search the URL. Keeping these would set a precedent to create URL-titled redirect articles for every media outlet, product, celebrity, transit agency, electric utility, etc. that has one. -Sme3 (talk)12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sme3 above. Thanks for the explanation , that makes sense. [ mad pierrot ] 16:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Norway relations

• Argentina–Norway relationsArgentina–Norway relations →List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)

delete, redirecting toList of diplomatic missions of Argentina is inappropriate redirect for a bilateral article.LibStar (talk)00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Implausible misnomer and inaccurate titling as well.GraYoshi2x►^talk15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - potentially useful redirect and no valid deletion reason has been adduced.TerriersFan (talk)02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close/Strong keep Nominators only problem with this redirect seems to be that these articles were redirected to List of diplomatic missions, not Foreign relations of...[1] A quick message to me, or taking two seconds to fix the problem would have avoided this RFD. I was also not notified of this RFD.Ikip (talk)04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the target article has only the Argentine side of it and not the Norwegian side. There is no appropriate target currently in Wikipedia; nor is a two branch disambiguation appropriate here.B.Wind (talk)02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]