The result of the discussion was Deleted by Lid with rationale "R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect". -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. I know redirects are cheap and we should keep redirects from common misspellings, but this one doesn't strike me as that common - while the letters are next to each other, could you really type 'Barack Oba,a' instead of 'Barack Obama' and not notice? We don't need a redirect from every possible misspelling, especially with the 'Did you mean?' function on the Search page. Robofish (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I created it myself after mistyping the name "Barack Obama". The comma key is next to the m. I don't see the value of deleting redirects like this. --TS 20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, likely typo. Garion96 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's ugly looking, but on a QWERTY keyboard it's a likely typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as a plausible typo. PaulJones (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap, and this one is an entirely plausible typo on QWERTY keyboards. tempodivalse [☎] 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless we are willing to have redirects from every keystroke one key off of the correct one. Varack Obama, Narack Obama, Bsrack Obama, Baeack Obama, Batack Obama, Barsck Obama, Baraxk Obama, Baravk Obama, Baracj Obama, Baracl Obama, etc.. Typos would be, say Barak Obama, not every possible missed keystroke. Users are not stupid, we do not need to patronise them. - Nabla (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nabla and if someone makes a typo like this it would show up on the search query, so not that big of a deal. Tavix |  Talk  00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible typo — it happened once, it may happen again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we don't need this coming up in the search results. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 04:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term, redirect with an uncommon typo Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while it is a plausible typo, as others have pointed out, we don't need this comming up in the search results, and if it is deleted and someone makes the mistake again, Barack Obama will probably be the first article in the search results. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not create redirects for typos in the sense of mistyping; we use them for common misspellings. This is not a misspelling, just a finger wondering off. — Edokter • Talk • 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a typo, we don't have redirects for every possible typo. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted & I'll fix the links. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The leading comma makes this an unlikely term for the target. Nobody will search for this, and it isn't needed for linking. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as per nom. PaulJones (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, it seems to be needed for linking. It's "needed" — if need this truly is — because ((Canadian City Geographic Location)) is mis-used on quite a few pages in the way that you'll find it mis-used, for example, at Battleford, Saskatchewan#External links. Bogus internal links to this page exist in all eight directions. Special:Whatlinkshere/, Saskatchewan shows all of the other places that do this, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eep. That's quite a list, but is there some reason why those links have to be in the comma form? There aren't any such redirects for other Canadian provinces; in fact, this is the only page other than , itself that starts with a comma. If it's meant to be a stylistic choice, ((Canadian City Geographic Location (8-way))) accepts piped links without a problem. If there's some other reason, I'm not seeing it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know. Ask the editor, Cocopie (talk · contribs), who made the edit. Also note the irony of the fact that, eight months earlier, the proper links had been removed. Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, I read Uncle G's concern and I really don't think it is that big of a deal. There are no other Canadian provinces with the comma like that so this looks relatively minor. Tavix |  Talk  00:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 10:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete as R3.. Was created just today, meets R3 easily. SoWhy 19:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; the target article is not the Christmas special (most likely the halloween special instead); we don't have enough content to facilitate an article about the proper Christmas special and will not until we know the title anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete for simple housekeeping. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I reopen this discussion? Surely the fact that there was an AfD under this title means that the redirect has useful history and should be kept. Or am I misreading "Reasons for not deleting" #1 at WP:RFD#KEEP? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Should be kept for AfD linking purposes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the link on the AfD; the article was moved. The redirect serves no purpose at all. — Edokter • Talk • 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The AfD is perfectly clear as it stands. I can't see any useful history here that requires preserving this as a redirect. Maccy69 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross-Namespace redirect. WorldChampion392 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a cross-namespace redirect that is not a probable search term. Remove it. tempodivalse [☎] 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The usual arguments against cross-namespace redirects only apply to those namespaces that are part of the encyclopaedia proper, and where the target of the redirect is not in such a namespace. What is your argument against a redirect that is in the project namespace, and not a part of the encyclopaedia proper in the first place? Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless cross-namespace redirect Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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