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. -- BDD ( talk) 14:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• J. Issac Friedman → J. Isaac Friedman  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I'm not quite sure what the rules are for redirects. This one is part of a batch of Isaac/Issac redirects, and while the a and the s are close on a Qwerty keyboard, I don't think it's a very likely typo. In addition, it's claimed to be a redirect for an alternate spelling, but I see no evidence anywhere that Issac is a legitimate alternate spelling of Isaac. I know redirects are cheap, but I don't really see the purpose of it. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep, although I actually agree with everything you said (hence the 'weak'). It's not an alternative spelling, and it's not a likely typo. In fact, I only get a couple hits when searching "J. Issac Friedman." However, I did find one use from a reliable source: the Poynter Legislative Research Library of the Louisiana House of Representatives. In case someone were to search for him from that document, the redirect would be there to take them to the right place. It's not harmful, there isn't any other competing use, so I think it's best to leave it alone. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 22:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well, I was also wondering because there's a lot of them (creator made 89 of them, including Issac Asimov Presents The Great SF Stories 25 (1963) and Jean-Pierre Issac), and I thought we were being a bit more careful with them. Drmies ( talk) 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I believe there is enough evidence that Isaac/Issac are misspelled frequently enough to justify the existence of these redirects. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I would love to seem some of that evidence, Taylor Trescott; please prove me wrong if you can. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Certainly. Let's take, for instance, Isaac Newton, and the redirect Issac Newton. If we peer into the views of the redirect, we can see it received 1160 hits in January. Next, I checked Isaac Asimov, and the redirect Issac Asimov. I found the redirect earned roughly 400 hits in January. Not as impressive as Newton's, for sure, but I think this confirms that readers searching "Issac" by accident is a relatively common occurrence. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
      • OK--but the redirect currently under discussion had four hits, all at the time of creation. The main article for Asimov is one thing, but Issac Asimov Presents The Great SF Stories 25 (1963) has five and Jean-Pierre Issac is a high flyer, with 111 since December. So maybe there is some validity to the misspelling of the name in general, but I don't think that this applies to the much more complex "J. Isaac Friedman", where there are so many different typos one can make, and where the name requires so much more attention to type it in. Drmies ( talk) 03:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Yeah, the low view count is fair, but I think it's likely a symptom of Friedman's article itself getting little attention. I mainly chose the views of Asimov/Newton because I expected the Issac variants to recieve views, just as an attempt to show the typo isn't ridiculous from my perspective. I'll admit that I find the chance of this redirect ever seeing heavy use extremely minimal, but since it's a common typo with established past use (as opposed to something like J. Isaac Freddieman or whatever) I think we should stick with "it's harmless". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 06:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep as creator. Plausible misspelling. sst✈ 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This misspelling has even made its way into some people's actual names. See Dr. Issac Elmer Williams House and Office; all references I've found that mention the place and/or its namesake use the spelling "Issac". WP:OR, but bear with me: a relative of mine, named "Isaac", has gotten "Issac" throughout his life, whether on corporate-sent mail or handwritten notes from other relatives. People make this mistake all the time, and it's not just a typo: they remember that it's "Isac" with a double letter, and they know that it wouldn't be "Iisac" or "Isacc", but they can't remember whether it's "Isaac" or "Issac". Nyttend ( talk) 03:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep {{ R from typo}} common mispelling for the name "Isaac" is "Issac" -- 70.51.46.39 ( talk) 05:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - A great number of people will hear "Isaac" and think that it's spelled something like "Issac" or other derivations. It's also a very reasonable typo even for people that do know the whole Biblical history behind "Isaac" meaning "laughter" and how Hebrew language terms are common in English. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:42, 3 March 2016 (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 withdrawn; converted to set index. -- BDD ( talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Liebeck → Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This last name refers to several people, and it prevented me from finding the title I was looking for. DAB it or delete and let the search results do their thing. Legacypac ( talk) 15:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Easy dabify / set-index-ify. I've drafted below. Probably speediable. I could just convert it wholesale and declare it outside the scope of RfD, though we generally only do that with articles proper. -- BDD ( talk) 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

With the dab build I'll withdraw. Thankyou. Legacypac ( talk) 17:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. Thanks! -- BDD ( talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 14:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• DeHart Crockett → Dick Crockett  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

A middle name last name redirect. User:Neelix again. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Richard 'Dick' Crockett was never known by this. We have real people actually known as 'DeHart Crockett', too, so the redirect is confusing as well as unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no external use, or potential use here. Individual was never known by his middle and last name. Ajraddatz ( Talk) 05:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 00:04, 3 March 2016 (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 retarget to Good Shepherd (Star Trek: Voyager). sst✈ 03:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure) reply

• Crewman Mitchell → Tom Morello  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Morello apparently played Crewman Mitchell in a single episode of Star Trek: Voyager, but this is the only connection. Best to have this as a red link. As implied by the show mentioned, this is a User:Neelix redirect. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 06:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'd certainly have no objections to turning it red. If it's kept, the better target would be the episode: Good Shepherd (Star Trek: Voyager). -- BDD ( talk) 16:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to the episode seems okay. It's a notable enough appearance (moreso than Morello's appearance in a crowd in Star Trek: Insurrection) and no competing uses. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 19:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retargetting to the episode makes sense to me. I agree that is more meaningful than the current direction; I doubt the crewman would meet notability standards, thus no need for a redlink. Ajraddatz ( Talk) 05:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Good Shepherd (Star Trek: Voyager), to make it official. Fairly trivial, but unambiguous enough. -- BDD ( talk) 22:05, 8 March 2016 (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 keep per WP:SNOW. It was a valid question to ask, and it seems we have a definitive answer. ( non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• American airlines → American Airlines  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Since this has a lowercase 'a', I'm wondering if it shoul d go to List of airlines of the United States instead - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think this is fine as it is, especially because a hatnote is in the article already. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Taylor Trescott -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 01:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Also keep per Taylor. People usually search AA in search as "american airlines" (in lowercase, no quotation marks); changing redirect of "American airlines" from "American Airlines" (world's largest airline) to "List of airlines of the United States" can make things really confusing for many readers. ---- みんな空の下 ( トーク) 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Most readers are likely looking for the specific airline. The hatnote serves other readers. sst✈ 08:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As stated above, we have a reasonable enough primary target and anybody wanting related details can just click the links that are right up there at the start of things. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 14:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but a hatnote couldn't hurt per the nom's rationale. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I guess there already is a hatnote. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (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. -- BDD ( talk) 14:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Windows Technical Support → Technical support scam  ( links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Does not exclusively refer to the scams. There is also the official Windows tech support. (Never mind that the scammers have spammed the google results). - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Champion, what do you think should be done if a user searches for this term? There's no encyclopedia article at Windows technical support about legitimate tech support for Microsoft Windows, and it's probably not a notable topic. The results that I see on general web searches and especially in the news, e.g., at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22windows+technical+support%22&num=20&tbm=nws very strongly indicate that the scam is indeed the most relevant (and WP:DUE) subject for this title to redirect to. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  @ WhatamIdoing: The question is whether anyone will actually search the term on Wikipedia? (which I think won't be particularly unlikely, but not common either, as they probably want to know how to contact MS Tech Support.) If they do search this, I suspect they want to know how to get support for their PC, and not an article on the scams. If they wanted to look for information on the scam instead, they would add the 'scam' to the search term. This fits with the rationale at WP:R#DELETE number 10 and WP:REDLINK. Also Google itself is not a WP:RS. - Champion ( talk) ( contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

  You're assuming that people who are searching for the name of the organization that called them have already realized that it's a scam, which IMO is not reasonable assumption. Also, I can easily imagine someone searching Wikipedia to find out what's going on with a company (readers do that every day), but I cannot imagine why anyone would search an encyclopedia to find a tech support provider.
  I disagree with your assertion of R#DELETE #10. The fact that you can pay someone to fix a Windows box is not a notable subject. It does not deserve an article of its own and it cannot be plausibly expanded into an article that wouldn't die at AFD for being trivial, how-to, not covered directly by sources (i.e., sources about tech support for Windows and how that differs from, say, tech support for Unix), and spambait. Tech support doesn't even deserve (or get) a section in Microsoft Windows; it is not plausible to expect an entire, stand-alone article on the subject.
  I agree that Google isn't a reliable source for most purposes, but Google News (which is what I linked) is a very good method for finding out what a variety of reliable sources are talking about when they write about "Windows Technical Support". Almost all of them are talking about this scam. Legitimate tech support is not the subject that appears in reliable sources that use this term. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Harmful redirect! It implies that the actual Windows technical support from Microsoft is a scam. It is only a matter of time before a registered editor moved this to Windows technical support, getting the wrong idea. The risk is double here since Microsoft has a bad reputation regarding consumer support. And don't bind hopes to the "Windows Technical Support" phrase in the article; it is a matter of time before someone realize it is failing to comply with MOS:CAPS and changes its letters to natural English. Actually, I myself just realized ...
  Best regards,
  Codename Lisa ( talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do you really think it hurts Microsoft's reputation to get people to the article that says Microsoft has nothing to do with these scammers? Does it really imply anything about the subject that any other redirect doesn't? (People almost never move redirects, and it wouldn't matter if they did; the original would still point to the same article.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, I am not worried about Microsoft's reputation at all. (It has no reputation worth losing, thanks to its brazen attitude.) I was thinking about the person who reads it. It misled me; it can mislead others. And I am not concerned about an actual move as much as I am concerned about people who do not act. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
      • MOS:CAPS doesn't apply; "Windows Technical Support" is the proper noun/name of the company that the scammers claim to be from.
        How did it mislead you? I'm just curious to know what you thought, when you read the article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
        • It would be definite name only if the scammer clearly put a "™" or "®" in front of "Support" and consistently claimed this title is not associated with Windows and Microsoft. (I suspect they exactly did the opposite.) Scammers are not the best grammarians.

        You know, I was very close to putting this title in Template:Microsoft. I just clicked on it to make it is not a redirect to an existing topic. I was surprised at what I saw. Effectively, any use of this redirect is a WP:EGG violation. As for searchers, it only makes sense to think he who searches "Windows technical support" is looking for Windows technical support. That's why Microsoft Antivirus redirects to MSAV, not MS Antivirus (malware).

        Best regards,
        Codename Lisa ( talk) 18:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep and add Microsoft technical support. These names are clearly articulated at the article and our articles on the real company and product are linked high in the article. This is helpful to the reader and the redirect helps the search engines rank this article for these phrases. Legacypac ( talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep and add hatnote This page is about the scam. It is not to be confused with "Microsoft's Technical support" to address misleading issue.-- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 02:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I like the idea of a hatnote. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:SURPRISE! and per Codename Lisa. It's harmful for someone looking for the real technical support to be fed an article about a scam. Someone looking for the scam would likely clarify that, by searching for things like Windows Technical Support scam. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What page do you think we should offer to a user who is looking for information about the legitimate-sounding company that just phoned them, i.e., someone who is not "looking for the scam" but who does urgently need information about the existence of this scam? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Search results will work just fine. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
      • There are about 8,000 hits in search results, which might not be very convenient for readers.
        You said that "someone looking for the real technical support" shouldn't be made aware of this problem. The article indicates that people looking for tech support online actually do need to be aware of this, because the scammers are advertising themselves as commercial tech support companies. Why do you believe that a person who is at risk of getting scammed doesn't need to be directed to this article? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
        • User:WhatamIdoing: Tavix did not say that people going to this page shouldn't be made aware of this problem, nor did they say anything resembling that. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 14:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree, I would be very surprised to end up here. Also, a "not to be confused with" hatnote that points to nothing sounds rather unappealing. MelanieLamont ( talk) 17:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's a WP:SURPRISE and also serves a despairing connection between all of the subject of the redirect and the subject of the target article. The redirect's subject would he represented by live human beings, so this could also serve as sort of a WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 ( talk) 17:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - As stated above, the valid technical support service and the well-known scam artist ploy both are valid, separate topics that should not be arbitrarily conflated. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 06:38, 3 March 2016 (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.