The result of the discussion was keep and unprotect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor → Prince Henry of Wales (links to redirect)

Protected double-redirect that is not in use, and a cumbersome title that is unlikely to ever be in use.  [ mad pierrot ]  22:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll pull the ol' "redirects are cheap" card on this one as it might catch people using search engines looking for his full personal name. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect and retarget- good point. But does it seriously need to be protected? And the double redirect should be fixed.  [ mad pierrot ]  14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've already fixed the double redirect (dumb me forgot to look at the target before my previous comment). I'll leave it to an admin not involved in this discussion to finalize/unprotect. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:58, 14 August 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 keep. The redirect cannot be deleted per WP:MAD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert'); DROP TABLE Students;-- → Xkcd (links to redirect)

Unlikely search term, only appeared in one strip. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although, I really like that this redirect exists... It's pretty funny.  [ mad pierrot ]  05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm guessing you saw it already TPH, but this had an AfD less than four months ago where the result was to merge to Xkcd and keep it as a valid search term, albeit unlikely. The character, despite being mentioned once, is one of the more popular jokes from the comic. Besides, he's mention at Xkcd#Characters. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While RfD isn't necessarily bound to respect an editorial preference from AfD, this character is currently mentioned in the article as one of the better-known references from the comic. Redirecting the character's name is reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:36, 15 August 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 keep - plausible misspelling, no specific reason given why this particular misspelling is harmful. ~ mazca ^talk 10:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Phaeoannelomyces werneckii → Hortaea werneckii (links to redirect)

Misspelling of the right redirect Phaeoannellomyces werneckii, I know they are allowed in redirects but create confusion in taxonomy :) Aytrus (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Misspellings are definitely allowed per WP:REDIRECT. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RfD#KEEP as single "L" vs. double "L" variants occur with high frequency when it comes to misspellings. The redirect would also point to the article containing the correct spelling, making it much easier to navigate than trying to find the correct spelling in the search engine. B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 23 August 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upn.com → UPN (links to redirect)

URLs are not a valid reason for a redirect, as per WP:RCAT.

EDIT (12 Aug 09) - Nominate for deletion, if I didn't make it clear before

Also, add to this list, for the same reasons and by the same user, the following: Tbs.com, Sbs.com.au, Bell.ca/tv, Cinemax.com, Starz.com/channels/encore, Starz.com, Sho.com/tmc, Family.ca, Bell.ca, Themovienetwork.ca, CBC.ca, Ibm.com, Sky.it, Tnt.tv, Rai.tv, Bbfc.co.uk Sme3 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not comply with WP:REDIRECT as the nominator stated, and I'm sure most of these URLs would fall under WP:ADVERT as well. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - what about www.google.com and www.yahoo.com? Don't they qualify as well?  [ mad pierrot ]  05:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not really. On Boyhere's talk page I mentioned Hotels.com as an acceptable use, since the company is defined by the web site, and the company actually has "dot-com" in its name. Google and Yahoo are similar, as is Monster (website), which has been marketed both as "Monster" and as "Monster.com". However, the URL's I listed are ancillary pieces (marketing arms) to the businesses - which are not an online companies. I'm not saying it violates WP:ADVERT as GraYoshi2x suggests, I just don't see any case in which someone would search the URL. Keeping these would set a precedent to create URL-titled redirect articles for every media outlet, product, celebrity, transit agency, electric utility, etc. that has one. -Sme3 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sme3 above. Thanks for the explanation , that makes sense.  [ mad pierrot ]  16:10, 12 August 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 no consensus. Given the obscurity of the relationship this is a hideously unlikely search term anyway; but there's no consensus either way and it appears moderately reasonable to direct a reader to a semi-relevant article rather than nowhere. ~ mazca ^talk 10:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Argentina–Norway relations → List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)

delete, redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Argentina is inappropriate redirect for a bilateral article. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Implausible misnomer and inaccurate titling as well. GraYoshi2x►^talk 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - potentially useful redirect and no valid deletion reason has been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close/Strong keep Nominators only problem with this redirect seems to be that these articles were redirected to List of diplomatic missions, not Foreign relations of...[1] A quick message to me, or taking two seconds to fix the problem would have avoided this RFD. I was also not notified of this RFD. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the target article has only the Argentine side of it and not the Norwegian side. There is no appropriate target currently in Wikipedia; nor is a two branch disambiguation appropriate here. B.Wind (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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