The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider removing this redirect, as this is an uncommong misspelling that we should not promote enderminh 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I misspell it that way all the time. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirects are cheap, and way better a redirect than a useless article. Denni^talk 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a fairly easy error for someone to make in a search and it does no harm. I also fail to see how it promotes misspellings. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — common misspelling of exactly the sort that redirects are for. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and erase the delete message.--Altermike 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add to Category:Redirects from misspellings (I just did that and somebody else removed the rfd tag). PrimeHunter 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a common misspelling. I have re-added the ((rfd)) tag, which should stay on the article until this discussion is closed. -- Black Falcon 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. Redirect resulted from a move over a year ago. Unlikely search term, only trivial external links demonstrated. WjBscribe 19:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibly improbable search term. I don't think I could type this in the search box if I tried, and I've read it a few times now. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and send it to WP:BJAODN - it's kinda funny. YechielMan 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. If sending to WP:BJAODN, please quote Dekimasu's comment along with it. EALacey 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Excellent WP:BJAODN candidate per above. --Shirahadasha 04:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wonderfully improbable, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who would type that whole thing out? Send to WP:BJAODN - It's actually kind of funny, though. BlackBear 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The redirect was created by a move. Somebody might see the former (now redirecting) title in a mirror or archive and search for the current article. Redirects are cheap and this one does no harm. It would have been more funny if somebody had created it as a redirect to an existing article. PrimeHunter 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incoming links from http://co17.mitera-kritis.com/asiabeijingchina.html and http://www.freeattcellular.com/cellularserviceasiatravel.html will die if the redirect is deleted. PrimeHunter 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of those pages appear to be advertising-based, using the links only in an attempt to catch traffic, particularly the second one (this article is applicable to cheap cell phone services?). Even if I saw a link to this redirect on an external site, there's no way I would click on it. Dekimasuよ! 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace redirect to a category. The page was created (with little actual content) as an article to direct readers to a category that includes organisations that "promote and/or implement Appropriate technology". The page spent 13 days as an "article" before being redirected. It lacks a useful edit history and has no significant incoming links. Its title does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions (the category of the same name was renamed) and its length leads me to believe that it is not a plausible search term term. Better titles would be Appropriate technology organisations and Appropriate technology organizations (U.S. spelling), but even those should probably point to the main article rather than a subcategory. Black Falcon 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Obviously in its current form it makes no sense and violates guidelines. It's also too improbable to retarget. As an article, someone could perform a history merge into Appropriate technology but I'm not sure its worth the trouble. —dgies^t_c 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Upto the moment somebody creates the proposed article.--Altermike 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if someone does intend to create an article, should it not be under one of the two shorter titles sugggested above? -- Black Falcon 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cross-namespace --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was no consensus. WjBscribe 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak relation to target which is a dab that doesn't currently mention PESWiki (a website deleted 4 times [1][2]). Creator of redirect mentioned PESWiki inappropriately at target (diff), but was quickly reverted. PrimeHunter 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Wickethewok 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" and make Wikipedia a petro-cracy. Although PESWiki is about free energy (no about free as gratis beer - the sense used in the article- but free as free encyclopedia - really, free source - ;) --Altermike 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. PESWiki search in Wikipedia gives 89 results. --HybridBoy 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really useful as a redirect, but seems to keep coming back from the grave. —dgies^t_c 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the wiki appears in the same Wikipedia, it must have a place in it.--Altermike 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Manhole Invasion" was a hoax title for a Doctor Who episode that someone created an article based on without a source, and as the real title has been revealed and is different (Evolution of the Daleks), this redirect is definitely useless. -- SonicAD (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A hoax title might be worth keeping as a redirect if it had been widely reported, but this one clearly hasn't. EALacey 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This hoax was "current" for about six hours, and was not widely reported. Useless redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was never a hoax title, it was a earlier title then it was changed. But now it has, it serves no purpose.--MrWez 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term seems to be the invention of User:Altermike, and nothing links to this redirect. --Vossanova ^o< 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Made-up term, unlikely to be searched/linked. —dgies^t_c 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was keep. Redirects are cheap. WjBscribe 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is curently a useless redirect at Veterans with Desputed Status. I was going to nominate it for deletion, but I give up making this RfD process work. Until the process is fixed, I will just put the ((rfd)) tag on redirects and leave it for someone else to follow up. Sumbuddy please put a message on my talk page when the RfD process is fixed.

BTW, a working process is one where all templates are subst-ed or none of them are. A process where you subst sometimes is a broken process. A process that tells you to go somewhere and do something without telling you where to go and what to do is a broken process. — Randall Bart 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this include how RfD doesn't tell you whether to post at the top of the section for the day or the bottom of the section for the day? Dekimasuよ! 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Almost plausible typo. Redirects are cheap. —dgies^t_c 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I think typing "disputed" as "desputed" is a plausible typo. However, there is also the fact that it is a mixed-capitalisation redirect: VwDS. I doubt whether many would incorrectly spell "disputed" and also type this particular capitalisation. But, since redirects are cheap, I'll suggest a "weak delete". -- Black Falcon 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — this one seems harmless and, as Dgies says, almost plausible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as the history strongly suggests that this was the result of a merge. Plus, what Dgies said. Xtifr _tälk 12:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.