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 at new target. Yay for editing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BiblicalInterpretation → Bible (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I propose deletion. It is a CamelCase title. Google returned no hits (other than itself) for "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiblicalInterpretation" —ron2^(talk) 23:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Biblical hermeneutics which is also the target for Biblical interpretation. This is a long-standing redirect and not an implausible typo. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —ron2^(talk) 04:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/retarget we keep old CamelCase titles, and this is definitely old, since it was created in 2001, when Wikipedia only allow articles with CamelCase titles. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Retarget to Reel-to-reel audio tape recording There's relevant content so why not ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tape editing → Digital audio editor (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I propose a delete of this redirect.

The target article is a stub which states that "digital audio editor is a computer application for audio editing, i.e. manipulating digital audio." Tape editing could also mean audio editing, but in an analog fashion (physically cutting and "gluing" sections of audio tape) - i.e. it's not the same as digital audio editing and hence shoudn't redirect to that article. That definition is also posted on the talk page of Talk:Tape editing.

Other users commenting on the Talk:Digital_audio_editor#Tape-editting question the logic behind the redirect of Tape editing to Digial audio editor. The talk page of Tape editing has some unrelated "garbage". Tape editing has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Technology since 2005. Is seems it once was a list of names, but later was blanked and redirected to Digital audio editor. Long story short: Tape editing is unrelated to Digital audio editor. The redirect is confusing and should be deleted. - Meewam (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Reel-to-reel audio tape recording which deals with tape editing, by splicing. The history of this page is that it was originally a particularly bad article, here. This was subsequently converted to a redirect. I don't see anything salvageable in the original page so a redirect is fine and better than deletion since the suggested retarget contains information that the reader may be seeking. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How to grow green veggies → Kitchen garden (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect title is not a viable redirect title, it was added to prove a point based on the current CSD criteria discussion. There could be an infinite number of "how-to" titles (as demonstrated on that talk page), and there's no reason redirect them all. Indeed, the section of Kitchen garden to which this links is NOT a how-to in the first place, thus the redirect is created in error. This is different than, say Greased Up Deaf Guy linking to List of characters in Family Guy; that redirect makes sense. This one does not, if for no other reason than the section in question does not describe how to grow the veggies, nor should it. — Timneu22 · talk 21:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The section it redirects to does not describe "How to grow green veggies", so it is entirely inappropriate. In fact, considering this comment in conjunction with the creation of the redirect with the same time stamp, and the context in which the comment was made, it is quite clear that creating the redirect was disruption to prove a point, and as such it is effectively vandalism, so I think a case can be made for speedy deletion under CSD G3. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how Wikipedia was disrupted by the creation of this redirect? Since I created it and I don't remember intending any harm toward Wikipedia when doing so, you should be able to demonstrate how it was intended to cause harm if you are going to call it vandalism. While I probably wouldn't have created it if not for that conversation, I think it is a plausible search term, and therefore a valid redirect. That is exactly what that conversation was about, that redirects are navigation aids that are not judged the same way as articles. If it's possible that even one user will one day find content they were looking for as a result of this redirect being created, then it has done it's job and should be kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't we create every possible how-to that could exist. How to tune a piano, How to apply upholstery to furniture, etc.? These are not plausible search terms for wikipedia. If they are, seriously we're missing several thousand "how to"s. — Timneu22 · talk 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Beeblebrox, I accept you didn't intend to cause disruption. Nevertheless, it was created to make a point, and it was disruptive, even though unintentionally. It is not a plausible search term for the contents of Kitchen garden#Vegetable garden, which is where it redirects to, because that section does not tell us anything about how to grow vegetables. Consequently in the unlikely event that someone types in "how to grow green veggies" they will be taken to something which is not on the topic they were looking for. This will be unhelpful, and it may well be that they will then waste time looking through the article to find the information they want. This is far more likely than that "even one user will one day find content they were looking for", since such a user must have been looking for something other than what they typed in. The redirect is therefore more likely to inconvenience users than to help them. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO - Meewam (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link should be deleted. But on this page there should be a link to a wikibook, perhaps the one on Horticulture, that way Howto articles will stay in Wikibooks, and Wikipedia will stay clean. --Joehms22 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see little point in such a wikibook link. How likely is it that anyone will actually type in "how to grow green veggies"? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it seems improbable that searchers would use the term veggies. Also, FWIW, we have a page Vegetable farming that contains a small amount of relevant information, but more than the current target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ruben van Ashout → Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is the incorrect name of the sole survivor of Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 to that article. Propose to delete SQB (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as can be seen here, this misspelling has been widely reported. Consequently, it is a foreseeable search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the name was misreported, but the redirect is useful as people may use it as a search term. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is Delete Later an option? SQB (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might get deleted now since it is very early in the discussion! However, if it survives my crystal ball is cloudy as to the future. Will the name still be misreported? Will the redirect still get traffic? Imponderables, at the moment! Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A handfuld of news sites (~150 hits in google is hardly "widely reported") spelling a name wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia should establish a redirect. - Meewam (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it does mean precisely that. Taemyr (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't. Also, is abusing the purpose of redirects for something the Wikipedia search engine would be handling (suggesting the correct name of the article), since it wouldn't be "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." - Meewam (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since this spelling has been used in media it is plausible that readers will use it when searching wikipedia. It is not disputed which topic they will be looking for. Taemyr (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]