Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 3

October 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 3, 2010

Charles-Joseph, 7th Prince of Ligne/version 2



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Charles-Joseph, 7th Prince of Ligne (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible redirect left over from a page move in 2007. There is some minor history, but none of it seems to have made it into the current version of the article, so attribution shouldn't be a concern, although a WP:HISTMERGE could be done if that is indeed a problem. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

The semi-identical twins



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Twin (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Pointless and, according to traffic statistics, unused, particularly in lieu of the redirect Semi-identical twins. — the Man in Question (in question)  21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete – pointless the.  McLerristarr /  Mclay1  03:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Monozyotic



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Twin (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Clearly a typo (for Monozygotic), not a simple misspelling. — the Man in Question (in question)  21:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep-Easily a plausible typo, and thus useful as a search term. Not sure what the rationale for deleting is here.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - We don't delete long-standing typos unless they are harmful which this one is not. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Twynne



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Twin (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Nonsensical spelling of "twin". Perhaps used in some Middle English text, but not actually something anyone would be searching for. — the Man in Question (in question)  21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - Check out the Wiktionary entry: Twynne is not a nonsensical spelling of "twin"; it is an obsolete spelling of "twin". It is common practice to redirect terms in other languages to their English counterparts on the English Wikipedia. If those are considered valid redirects, so should obsolete English spellings. Neelix (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-Conceivable, if admittedly not extraordinary likely, search term.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - harmless; no grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

TIWTEOYSWMF



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → This Is What the Edge of Your Seat Was Made For (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible. Too many letters to understand the abbreviation clearly. -- ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV  13  18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep-Google search shows the term is fairly commonly used in reference to the album, so its defiantly plausible. No reason to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - no good reason to delete. Readers may well cut'n'paste' this abbreviation from external sites so we should make it easy for them to find out about it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)