Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 19

March 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 19, 2009

Ordos people → Ordos culture
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC) procedural nom. User:虞海 tagged the article with rfd but never completed the nomination. The user had previously contended that these are 2 separate concepts and the redirect is therefore inappropriate. I'm neutral. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as is until someone starts a separate article on Ordos people. What we have here is an ancient civilization for which considering the two as separate concepts may not be totally inappropriate: we know the people from their culture alone. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, nom hasn't participated but links to an older version that actually was a separate article on Ordos people. That, however, was merged which is a reason for keeping the redirect and built on it if necessary..--Tikiwont (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Neftchala → Talk:Neftchala Rayon
The result of the discussion was Now it doesn't; simply putting the project tags on would have been simpler, which is what has been done. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Delete. Redirect to the talk page of another page. Andre Engels (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Variable programmable intelligent beacons → List of intelligence gathering disciplines
The result of the discussion was Delete. Target is actually a list of pages itself. Tikiwont (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Inappropriate redirect - target does not match subject, no other obvious target exists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete – doesn't appear to be the same, per nom.  TheAE  talk / sign  23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-tens → 2010s
The result of the discussion was Ten's kept and Teen's deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Twenty-teens → 2010s
 * The twenty-tens → 2010s
 * The twenty-teens → 2010s
 * Twenty Ten's → 2010s
 * Twenty Tens → 2010s
 * Two thousand tens → 2010s

(Weak) delete all. No likely usage, confusing, although it is possible that some of these (not twenty-teens) might be used by a real editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep alll. The twenty-tens are obvious enough, and shoudl certainly be kept, Whether the others will be colleoquial when we get there willl be another matter butt heres no reason not tno be ready for them.DGG (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for all. They are useful, and make sense.  TheAE  talk / sign  23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Twenty-tens as a plausible search term; delete the others (esp. those with "the", "teens", and "ten's") as unlikely to be used. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all except for the "teens" and "ten's" ones, as those are unlikely search terms.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  14:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweenz → 2010s
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Delete. No evidence of usage, although not created by a vandal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. No evidence of usage for that (or any other) term to describe the next decade. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not useful even as a redirect to tweens. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Ferlisation and Embrilogy Authority → Human_Fertilisation_and_Embryology_Authority
The result of the discussion was Kept. This redirect was created via page move prior to when the MediaWiki software logged the move in the destination's history. There is a view that page move history should be maintained for GFDL compliance. As this redirect is causing no harm, it's easier to keep it and tag as a misspelling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Suggest deletion of this redirect, as it has the same words as the target - just misspelt. Trafford09 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, we can't cater for these sort of misspellings. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I dimly remember moving the page to the correct spelling, but don't recall how/why the redirect was created as a result. It's obviously not necessary to keep the misspelling.  Ruyn (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – a redirect does no harm, and I can see this being a [semi-]common typo.  TheAE  talk / sign  23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jezhotwells. There are so many possible misspellings of a phrase as long as "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority" that no single one is individually a plausible search term, and we can't cater to every possible random misspelling or typo. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon. If a user types "Human fer" into the Search box, he sees 7 such - the first one being the misspelt one.  Trafford09 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)