Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 2

October 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2011

Bleeped Up

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 speedily deleted as WP:CSD R3 by Fastily. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeped Up → Fu**** Up (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete. Recently created absurd redirect (by move); see WP:NOTCENSORED, and it could refer either to the band or to the expression, the expression being more likely. (It was automatically retargeted to Fucked Up, which is even less likely than Fu**** Up.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagged as such - R3 recently created misnomer. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anthony Chavon Hanes

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 Speedily deleted as a redirect to a deleted page (CSD criterion G8). Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Chavon Hanes → Tony Hanes (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unnecessary, as no articles link here; the author's article, Tony Hanes, is at AfD, and will soon be deleted. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it does look like that the substantive page will be deleted and this redirect will follow. That will be sorted before this RfD is closed. Until then, no valid deletion grounds have been specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it redirects to a non-existant article. Zickel (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Detectingly

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. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detectingly → Detection (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The word "detectingly" is extremely rare, and "detection" is now a redirect. Simone (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gets so little traffic I don't think actual humans are searching for it at all and the word doesn't have anything to do with Detector (radio). Hut 8.5 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hut 8.5's comment. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rarity is not a reason for deletion. "Detectingly" is a real word and a valid redirect. I have retargeted it to Sensor to be consistent with the Detector redirect and other similar redirects. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - harmless and, crucially, no policy grounds for deletion have been specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Unlikely but not impossible. Extreme rareness is not a strong reason to delete this. —mako ๛ 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects are cheap, and we should keep this on the off chance that someone does search it. Also, there are no grounds to delete per policy. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.