Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 8

Windoze → Microsoft Windows
The result of the debate was retarget to Satiric misspellings. John Reaves (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (WinDoze, too)... this has been targeted at Microsoft Windows for the longest time, but the article doesn't make any mention of it. Last time this came up at RfD, it was voted to keep, but I think we should just go ahead and do what we do with M$ and other similar bits of purile humour: Retarget the redirect at Satiric misspellings. That's what "Windoze" really is, after all -- a satiric misspelling, not an actual operating system. -/- Warren 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Who cares Neither keep, nor delete, nor retarget. Anybody who types Windoze into the WP search engine knows what they are doing.  It doesn't really matter where they end up. SchmuckyTheCat 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget per nom If someone who doesn't know the phrase types it into Wikipedia to find out what it means (one of my first deliberate uses of Wikipedia was to determine the meaning of TANSTAAFL), the redirect will at least give them a clue as to what's going on. --ais523 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. It is a satirical misspelling, not an operating system, so shouldn't it redirect as such? Paul Cyr 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect Looks as if this should be redirected, based upon what I am seeing, I can agree with ais523. Alex43223T 02:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Autism epidemic → Autism (incidence)
The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Nom withdrawn and no other delete opinions. WjBscribe 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC) There is some question as to whether there is such a thing as an "autism epidemic", making the title biased in itself, and there's little support for the term in the target. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, I don't think there is a problem with POV redirects. John Reaves (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the page is deleted, is it possible that it could be recreated as a POV page? In which case the re-direct would be a safer option. --Limegreen 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been a problem in the past. If one looks through the history of the redirect it used to point to Frequency of autism, which in turn used to be the Autism epidemic article, as maintained and POV pushed by User:Ombudsman amongst others. Just look at the recent history of this redirect and the Frequency article to see how entrenched the pro-epidemic camp are. It is a sad failing of Wikipedia that this kind of misinformation cannot be neutralised in niche areas. Some days I take a stand, other days I can no longer be bothered. Many autism-related articles are in a terrible way POV-wise. aLii 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase "Autism Epidemic" is huge in the autism literature. Pointing to epidemiology is a huge benefit in directing readers. Kd4ttc 21:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As much as I dislike the term, it is used, and should redirect users to autism related articles. I believe it is best served pointing to the current Autism (incidence) article. However, there is perhaps a claim for it to point to the Controversies in autism article. Either way I've just "been bold" and redirected the Frequency of autism article to Autism (incidence) too. I left messages on the article talk for weeks without reply, so I guess no-one has a problem with it. aLii 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve the history and to prevent the POV-fork from reappearing. There may be some room to discuss a better destination for the redirect (but that discussion belongs on the redirect's Talk page).  Rossami (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw (and possibly speedy close). The problem is that the target doesn't reflect this title and the fork between Autism (incidence) and Frequency of autism, leading to edit history problems.  Some statement about the evidence (or lack thereof) for an "epidemic" should be in the target article, whereever it redirects.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

García Sariento de Sotomayor → García Sarmiento de Sotomayor, 2nd conde de Salvatierra
The result of the debate was Deleted per db-author. John Reaves (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC) The redirect contains a typo (missing "m") that is not likely to be duplicated. It's my typo &mdash; I created the redirect &mdash; and there is minimal history. I nominate it for deletion. --Rbraunwa 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Unlikely search tern and because of the spelling error.Regards - Telly  addict  16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nom here seems to satisfy requirements of db-author. Will tag as such. WjBscribe 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)