Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 15

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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mɑ̜̜ʼii → Coyote (Navajo mythology) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Useless. Uses Greek characters instead of proper Latin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must have made the Navajo word wrong. I thought this was the Navajo word for the character. If I used the wrong letters, this definitely should be deleted. If you know Navajo, could you please make a redirect with the correct name.--Ephert (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already corrected everything in-text. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ephert, is it not possible that someone else may make the same mistake you did? If so, this would be a plausible misspelling. Siuenti (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot type this on any keyboard so it cannot be an accidental misspelling. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plausibly useful for navigation, nominating rationale doesn't motivate deletion. WilyD 08:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way plausible for navigation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google, Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo all report that there are exactly three uses of this term on the internet - 1. The redirect being discussed, 2. This discussion, and 3. The redirect's entry in Category:Redirects for discussion. There is therefore no evidence that this term exists in any language. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Maybe the redlink catches the eye of some expert. Tikiwont (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Aluminum Zirconium Trichlorohydrex Gly → Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 
• Aluminium zirconium trichlorohydrex gly → Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Trichlorohydrex != tetrachlorohydrex. Elvey (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this redirect. It was added to supplement the pre-existing Aluminum Zirconium Trichlorohydrex Gly redirect which should be considered part of this RfD also. I have no special knowledge of this subject. - TB (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll XfD it too, which 'll alert its creator.--Elvey (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've merged the nominations as whatever the outcome of the discussion it should be the same for both capitalisations. I'll alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals as people there likely have relevant knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete the redirects unless someone shows up to flesh out the trichloride. In any event, the trichloride article can be restarted at any time that someone shows the interest. The trichloride and the tetrachloride are not the same, although the application appears to be.JSR (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool with killing this off, but we could keep it and slash a lot of dubious content. My equivocation comes from the finding that Googling "Aluminium zirconium trichlorohydrex gly" gives a lot of hits. The name is some sort of commericial hodge-podge, but 70,000 hits on Google says that others might be wondering about what it is and it appears that a lot of the commentary on the web is chemophobic, so we might serve society with a short sober article on this stuff. It is mentioned in Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. As the proud contributor to soap scum, attracting 1300 hits per month, I remain --Smokefoot (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.