The result of the debate was Convert to disambig. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Phred" is the name of a well-known tool in molecular biology. Hervold (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify as target article has hatnotes for two uses of "Phred". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig. In fact, I got a case of the boldies and already did it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incorrect spelling of that of Kevin Pereira - significant spelling differences. eric (mailbox) 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this seems a bit too far afield to be a plausible typographical error. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirects are cheap. The last name is a toughie; this is a theoretically possible typo/misspelling. GlassCobra 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's a potential misspelling of the last name. Midorihana みどりはな 23:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It does not seem to cause confusion with any other Kevins, and the misspelling is not too far-fetched. (I, myself, used to make frequent mistakes in peoples' names.) --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 00:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; any relationship between the redirect title and the target is a mystery. Russ (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --eric (mailbox) 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I've just removed two rather nonsensical "redirect" lines from the code. Only the redirect pointing to the target mentioned above is left. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the deleted history (before the page was made into the redirect) suggests that she was "actress of Coco Bandicoot in Cortex Strikes Back." That's the full, text of the page, though. No sourcing, no proof and no assertion that her role was even slightly notable. I don't think it's nonsense but it's not an especially strong connection either. The only useful argument I could see to keeping the redirect would be as a preventative against the future recreation of inappropriate content. Rossami (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Barely even mentioned in the target article, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per TenPoundHammer. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term. Midorihana みどりはな 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept and tagged as ((R from misspelling)). This is a plausible typo & while it was the original creator that moved the page, Rossami is correct there are some GFDL implications with deleting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redundant redirect. An obvious typo was made during the creation of the redirect of WWE World Tag Team Championship. S_RX 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, Delete as per nom. --- Paulley (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Plausible typo, but unlikely to be repeated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it documents a pagemove made back in 2004. The old redirect helps future editors find and trace those pagemoves when necessary. Note also that this move was executed before the latest change in the MediaWiki software to automatically record pagemoves in the edit histories of the pages. This is, from what I can tell, the only record still remaining of the pagemove. Given the subsequent history of the pages, a history-merger would be inappropriate in this case. Being "redundant" is not a good reason to delete a redirect - they really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --eric (mailbox) 21:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-target to Free energy. Both sides make good points. It is to remembered that the primary usage of redirect is as a navigational aid to redirect users to where content they are interested in is located. As there are at least two possible uses brought up in this discussion re-targeting to the disambig page & handling any alternate means is the best approach. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That there is any relation between them comes from one source, which appears to be a self-published book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is known. Has been cited ... Lindemann, P. A. (1986). A history of free energy discoveries. Garberville, Calif: Borderland Sciences Research Foundation. J. D. Redding 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No ISBN. No publisher's name. Disagreement among search results as to publication location. No match on amazon.com. Google books match also has no publisher, unless it's the BSRF. No indication there it's non-fiction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Free energy" and "perpetual motion" are two terms that mean almost the same thing (extracting more work from a process than you put into it). Although "free energy" is a modern term intended to avoid the stigma attached to the term "perpetual motion", it's reasonable that someone would use this as a search term for historical matter. Bear in mind that this isn't an endorsement of "correctness" in the nominated redirect, only utility. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the Thermodynamic concept of Free Energy is closely related to the fact that peropetual motion is impossible. It is the antithesis of perpetual motion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gavia. --eric (mailbox) 21:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or maybe change the target of the redirect. To me the term "free energy" actually suggested something different, something along the lines of Alternative energy rather than anything to do with "perpetual motion". I would think that redirecting to the disambiguation page Free energy and including an extra link there to something to do with "perpetual motion" machines would be a better choice than the current redirect. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Ambiguous. Category:Free Energy has recently been redirected to Category:Thermodynamic Free Energy. Perpetual motion machines are contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. The inclusion of this redirect within a template implies the false view that perpetual motion is possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most common usage of the term "free energy" is in thermodynamics. This redirect just adds confusion, not clarity, and is unencyclopedic. Yilloslime (t) 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection between "hard tac" and "hardtack". Hard tac refers to the armor worn by riot control police [1], not the hard bread known as hardtack. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 03:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. I think the redirect makes sense in terms of potential misspellings, although if there was ever an actual hard tac article, it should include a dab statement at the top for those looking for hardtack. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No connection establish even though mispellings are common. --eric (mailbox) 21:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Hard tac" seems to have several possible meanings that are completely unrelated to "hardtack": a type of police armor (mentioned by the nom), some kind of hard candy (e.g. [2]), some sort of technical term related to commercial fishing (e.g. see the first few entries in the GoogleNews search[3]). The redirect in its current form is likely to cause too much confusion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Could it potentially be turned into a disambiguation page? Midorihana みどりはな 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment (topics mentioned by Nsk92 don't seem to have articles). Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 00:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tesxt used in nom should be used to create this as an article, with a head note referring to hardtack. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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