Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Andrew McClinton
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 1|May 1]]=
==A&l==
: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
- {{no redirect|1 = A&l }} → :Art & Language (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A%26l&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-04-01&end=2019-04-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=A%26l stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:A&l|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#A&l closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:A&l|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#A&l closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:A&l|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#A&l closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
No indication that this is a particularly common initialism for the target, and an internet search indicates that it is used for a lot of unrelated subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, both because of what Rosguill said, and because the lowercase "l" makes it even more unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, the A&L initialism is used by the subject but the typo makes it unrelated. My mistake. --Philippe49730 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A&L redirects to Alliance and Leicester, I've just added a hatnote there to Anderson & Lembke which is the only other subject with an article that seems to commonly use the "A&L" acronym which is not a particle title match. The most prominent use is "A&L Goodbody" but that doesn't have an article (although see Draft:A&L Goodbody) and doesn't seem to be referred to as just "A&L". Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Alliance and Leicester, where A&L goes. Since we have the redirect already, I think it makes sense to keep it for the lazy people typing a&l or linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/a&l for some reason. I can't really argue strongly against deletion as the page has had a whopping 4 views. Daß Wölf 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- The page has only existed for a month so page views are not necessarily representative of utility (they might be, we just can't be sure yet). Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- All-lowercase redirects are often useful, e.g. mcdonald's, but this is not an all-lowercase redirect from a typing perspective — the & is essentially an uppercase 7 on a QWERTY keyboard, uppercase 1 on an AZERTY, and uppercase 6 on AZERTY. Who's going to hold down Shift for the middle character while releasing it for the third? In other words, this is like redirecting uSa to United States: not something useful. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually I do that often on IM for "&", it's easier than holding it down for all three letters. The argument also doesn't apply to mobile and on-screen keyboard users. Daß Wölf 22:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete for the lowercase L confusing with upper case I. A&L can be a dab or a primary depending on options. Same with A&I (upper case I)AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why does the appearance of a character in some fonts impact whether a redirect is a useful search term or not? Should we delete Al because it might be confused with AI? Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
: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.