Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 18

April 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2009

RSC(RISC Single Chip) → RISC Single Chip
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Delete - Unlikely search term. The user would have to type the acronym and the full name and forget to leave a space between the two. Typing in RSC takes the user to a disambiguation page, where there is a link to the article; typing in the name takes the user to the article. From the redirect's history, it appears to be a left over from a move to RISC Single Chip, probably because of a typo, and should have been deleted with the move. Rilak (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete as per above. PaulJones (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as per above - retaining redirects because of typing errors in naming of articles causes problems with the search facility in Wikipedia, leading to people linking articles to mis-spelled redirect pages.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Albermarle (1901) → HMS Albemarle (1901)
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Delete - because the redirect page was created by mistake (Albermarle), and the mistake was corrected (Albemarle). The existence of this page causes errors, as when linking the search facility can choose HMS Albermarle (1901), instead of HMS Albemarle (1901). No pages link to this page. There is no benefit in keeping it. There are benefits in deleting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment - Just a note that I declined R3 speedy deletion on these. They fit the "implausible" part of that CSD reason, but fail the "recent" part.  I just wanted to note that for why IMHO these did not qualify for speedy deletion, and are thus here instead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Albermarle (1680) → HMS Albemarle (1680)
The result of the discussion was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - because this page was created by mistake (Albermarle), and the mistake was corrected (Albemarle). The existence of this page causes errors, as when linking the search facility can choose HMS Albermarle (1680)), instead of HMS Albemarle (1680)). No pages link to this page. There is no benefit in keeping it. There are benefits in deleting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

HMS Hood (1893) → HMS Hood (1891)
The result of the discussion was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - because this page was created by mistake (1893), and the mistake was corrected (1891). The existence of this page causes errors, as when linking the search facility can choose HMS Hood (1893), instead of HMS Hood (1891). No pages link to this page. There is no benefit in keeping it. There are benefits in deleting it. There are benefits in deleting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

HMS Arethusa (1912) → HMS Arethusa (1913)
The result of the discussion was --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - because the redirect page was created by mistake (1912), and the mistake was corrected (1913). The existence of this page causes errors, as when linking the search facility can choose HMS Arethusa (1912), instead of HMS Arethusa (1913). No pages link to this page. There is no benefit in keeping it. There are benefits in deleting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'