Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 15

February 15
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2009

Famous airplane crashes → List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents
The result of the discussion was retargeted to Aviation accidents and incidents (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This redirect doesn't make any sense because the target article doesn't have anything to do with crashes, but simply the people who died in them. Tavix (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Aviation accidents and incidents. Seems an entirely likely search term. TerriersFan (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget per T-fan. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Aviation accidents and incidents as suggested by TerriersFan. --Bejnar (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget per above. I'm not even sure the current target would even survive AfD should it ever be nominated. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Stinky wink → Anus
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 13:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete as a childish and nonsense redirect. Tavix (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no real mention of this term in even remotely reliable sources.  Richard 0612  18:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep redirects are cheap. Per urban dictionary (NSFW) this slang term has been around for some time. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per stats.grok.se it gets a few hits a month... – xeno  ( talk ) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even with a few hits a month, not worth keeping - childish and not the least bit likely as a serious search term. --Bejnar (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why are a handful of people searching for it month after month? – xeno  ( talk ) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For all we know, it could be the same person each time. Note that the greatest number of searches in any one day over the past month is one. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what possible benefit could be had over deleting a redirect that is proving useful to at least a few people a month? Deletion does not save space, in fact it takes more. – xeno  ( talk ) 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be proving useful to at least a few people a month, if fact I doubt it. I suspect that the searching is just puerile purposive behaviour, at best.  Useful? Not really! --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * and this is harming the encyclopedia how? – xeno  ( talk ) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point it should be noted that WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument for keeping an article or redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That essay section almost entirely discusses articles, not redirects. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete not a serious search term, hits per month is irrelevant as all pages get some hits per month, WP:NOHARM is also irrelevant as it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussion not an argument to use in them and frankly, I find is somewhat disturbing that Xeno (as an admin) is using this "argument" in a deletion discussion as they should know better or shouldn't partake  fr33k man   -s-  06:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM applies nearly exclusively to articles, not redirects (read it). Redirects, by their very nature, should remain if they are doing no harm and have appropriate targets. This redirect may be helpful to a handful of people per month, and therefore, it should stay (though I seem to be in the minority - not sure why so many people want to delete a harmless redirect). – xeno  ( talk ) 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomasville, Pennsyvania → Thomasville, Pennsylvania
 The result of the discussion was Speedy delete since it is uncontroversial housekeeping (the result of a spelling correction in the article title). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that "Pennsyvania" is a common misspelling or nickname of "Pennsylvania". If so, we don't need this... Quantumobserver (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as an improbable misspelling. To look it from a broader scope, Pennsyvania doesn't even have a redirect. Tavix (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)