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 Re-targeted to Hearing impairment#Within school settings. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Deaf education → Second International Congress on Education of the Deaf (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect should be expanded into a proper article about deaf education, or, if that's not possible, deleted. The target article is about a very specific aspect of deaf education; it's unlikely to contain the information a person is looking for. 68.40.0.159 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hearing impairment#Within school settings. Not perfect, but the best we have at this point.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hearing impairment#Within school settings as a reasonable option. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hearing impairment#Within school settings per above—good find! –Grondemar 22:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Create a new article specific to the general topic. The hearing impairment discussion of school settings covers only a portion of the total scope of education for the deaf, which usually starts in early childhood outside of school settings. A new article is the best solution, but the retarget to Hearing impairment can be used temporarily until the article is prepared and ready to go online. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a red link (delete) to encourage creation or create article. In the mean time, a redirect will discourage creation. --NYKevin @046, i.e. 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are many instances where there is merit in a red link but not here. Any advantage in encouraging article creation is far outweighed by the disadvantage of making directly relevant content harder to find. Concealing good material in the hope that someone will ride in and write a page is not the way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm → QWERTY (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Really unlikely that someone would go that far. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—utterly useless redirect. –Grondemar 04:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly useless and unlikely redirect. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• By my count, looking at the deleted edits, at least six people have already gone that far, repeatedly, including this person for example. Looking outwith Wikipedia, I see plenty of others who have gone that far. I was going to predict that if you deleted this, you'd soon see why a redirect was a good preventative measure here, because the page would fairly rapidly go through the usual delete-create-redirect-delete cycle that such things always do. Then I looked at the deletion log and deleted edits. This page has already trod this circular course once, and trod the similar delete-create-delete circle three further times. A redirect is a good thing in such circumstances. Let's not pointlessly push this page around those loops yet again. Argument that this is unlikely is flatly contradicted by it having happened several times already. There's no argument that the target is inappropriate, moreover, or that the many (self-described) bored readers using this string should see a non-existent article. - Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - invalid nomination; no policy grounds for deletion have been specified. This redirects gets hundreds of hits each month so it is entirely plausible. People don't type these in they cut'n'paste from elsewhere. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While I believe this redirect is awfully useless, obviously there are people that uses this, so keep.—Chris!_c/t 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title itself is ridiculous. It is unlikely that people looking for this keyboard layout would type out the entire series of letters. TYelliot (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it is not a title, it's a search term. As stated above, people don't type then in they see them on the web and paste them into the search box to find out more about the term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt per User:Armbrust whoever posted that long thing and didn't adequately sign... --NYKevin @044, i.e. 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please specify a policy-compliant deletion reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't believe I'm required to do that, but okay: it's completely implausible that someone will type that into the search box and seriously expect to land on an article. --NYKevin @015, i.e. 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The fact that there were 588 hits in August alone demonstrates quite clealry that it is not an implausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fully protect This is a plausible redirect (judging by page views and edits) and is not harmful, ambiguous, or misleading. Full protection should ensure that the page stays as a redirect (it's obviously not a likely candidate for an actual article). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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