Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 21

September 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2010

Urząd Bezpieczenstwa



 * 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 No consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Ministry of Public Security of Poland (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Proper name is "Urząd Bezpieczeństwa" and there already is a redirect by the proper name. Such a typo seems unlikely in that it contains only one of Polish-only letters ("ą", but not "ń"). I relinked a few articles that linked to it to the properly named redirect. Keeping it seems only to help gather articles with yet undiscovered typos in links. IrekReklama (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Agree - delete.--Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - entirely plausible typo as shown by the hits. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the argument - isn't any typo plausible? What is the Plausibility Hit Count Threshold? As for now it's 29 hits this month. Moreover, those hits were there probably because of wrong linking which I had just corrected (about ten re-links).
 * As for the general problem
 * isn't a "Did you mean" mechanism in Wikipedia's search engine supposed to correct the user in case of a typo? Which is very good at it and corrects all the typos I can think of that aren't made into an article. I'd say: "We keep it, they learn it." I would also say it is not very encyclopedic to keep articles with typos in names.
 * if it is kept, is it possible to relink new links to it to the proper one (semi-)automatically? Like a bot that can be instructed to do so or something... IrekReklama (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The default is that we keep redirects because they are cheap, generally harmless and could help searchers. There needs to be a good reason to delete which I am not seeing here. If this redirect is kept then adjusting links, subsequently, is an editorial matter and outwith this RFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

T.O.P (Koreanrapper)



 * 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → T.O.P (entertainer) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Receives relatively low hits, unlikely typo. — ξ xplicit  08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - this redirect was created as part of a naming war and was the title of the page for just 5 minutes in June 2009. It has not been picked up by the mirrors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;implausible typo. –Grondemar 05:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)