The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, useless.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most highly unlikely search item with a title that violates WP:NAME, making it look like a badly-named subpage of the target. The sooner it can be put out of its misery, the better. B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 12 November 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 Speedy Delete as R3. Alexf^(talk) 12:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned on target, only external link, Wikipedia is not a directory 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 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-targeted to Renewable energy in the United States. There aren't really alternative articles for disambiguation. The new target talks about California wind power as well as other renewable energy sources so it serves the same function as disambiguating by getting the user to relevant information of interest. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California has solar and hydro resources as well 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate with links to both resources. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 12:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an interesting one. My first reaction was also to disambiguate. But when I look at the target article, it seems to me like that article should be deleted (or at least merged away) as more news-like than encyclopedic. I suppose disambiguation is the right answer while we decide what to do with the target... Rossami (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's clear that this should be a standalone article (as should the one below). Disambiguation on a state-by-state basis is actually a bit on the awkward side; instead, retarget to Renewable energy until the Renewable energy in California article is written. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 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-targeted to Renewable energy in the United States. There aren't really alternative articles for disambiguation. The new target talks about Texas wind power as well as other renewable energy sources so it serves the same function as disambiguating by getting the user to relevant information of interest. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas has solar and hydro resources as well 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate with links to both resources. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 12:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Using the same reasoning posited above, retarget to Renewable energy until the Renewable energy in Texas standalone article is written. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 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-targeted to Wind-powered vehicle. While the target has some issues, this is a minor variation on that article's title so re-targeting is the most appropriate choice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many types of wind powered vehicles 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This really should be a standalone article on wind-powered modes of transportation (iceboats, catamarans, etc.), but is this one of those cases in which a redlink is preferable? Since the only link to this redirect is from green transport, an article in dire need of work, I'm quite tempted to say delete for now. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough content that we could write an stand-alone article on this topic without resorting to original research or synthesis. Perhaps a disambiguation page could survive but if no one feels like converting it to that format before this discussion runs out, deletion would be equally useful to our readers. I agree that the one inbound link provides zero evidence of the project's need for a page on this topic. Rossami (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate with above links. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wind power or Disambiguate as above. The redirect made me laugh, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:50, 12 November 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) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not logically connected. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Again, far too tenuous a connection. Rossami (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not see the connection. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:57, 12 November 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 by MacGyverMagic as CSD R3. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company redirecting to a geographical feature, not mentioned there either. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - Sarangani Bay is not a redirect but a two-sentence "stub" about the bay. There's nothing to see here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination was backwards. Now corrected. Rossami (talk)
• Delete as another company of unproven notability with only a tenuous connection with this location. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rossami. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 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 by Rmhermen (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are not logically connected, an electric vehicle can waste electricity, and a vehicle that does not run on electricity can be efficient 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 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 by Rmhermen (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 02:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar is not the only type of renewable. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 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 delete. Wizardman 01:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cost competitveness factors besides fuel 70.55.84.27 (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The concept of "cost-competitiveness" is broader than the mere example of fuel. The phrase itself, however, is self-evident. Maybe soft-redirect to Wiktionary if a suitable target can be found. Rossami (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with the above reasoning, the source describes a more general concept than the target. Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 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 by Rmhermen (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one has nothing to do with the other 70.55.84.27 (talk) 10:15, 11 November 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 by MacGyverMagic as expired PROD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense at all. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy-delete. I can not find even a tenuous connection in this case. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Take newly created dab page to AfD as it seems questionable (top line is dubious at best; bottom line needs a stretch to make it a reach). Unfortunately, the speedy was declined, but the dab page doesn't appear to be valid, either. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've prodded the thing, please add a ((prod2)) if you agree. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Attempts to expand the dab page have turned it into a WP:Synthesis. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted - expired prod. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 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-targeted to Articulation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The connection in this case seems to have been that mobile phones are now using organic light-emitting diodes in an electric paper form. The electric paper form is notable primarily for being bendable. Delete as an utterly unreasonable redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Redirect to wictionary article. Certainly a plausible search term, but not for a phone. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to articulation. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BOLDly done. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 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 Speedy Delete as R3. Alexf^(talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 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 Speedy Delete as R3. Alexf^(talk) 12:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two terms are unrelated to each other. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 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 by Tone (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

term not found at target 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 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 by Redvers (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 02:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

term not found at target 70.55.84.27 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 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 by Tone (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 ^(t·c·r) 11:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

company name redirecting to generic term 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 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 delete. Wizardman 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blatant advertising NPOV violation 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possibly alternately redirect to screen-printing, except our article there makes no mention of any particularities of the ink used in that process, so a redirect would be confusing to the reader. --Delirium (talk) 09:03, 11 November 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 delete. Wizardman 01:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two terms are unrelated 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Quite unlikely redirect. --Delirium (talk) 09:02, 11 November 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising. I deleted this on noticing it. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are other flexible PV projects besides this one 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11: blatant advertising. I deleted this on noticing it. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 21:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is blatant promotion of a specific flexi-PV project 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 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 Speedy (R3) (closed by another Admin). Alexf^(talk) 18:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other types of wide area electronics, such as communications 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 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) 22:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other types of transparent electronics, like some organics, and vacuum tubes 70.55.84.27 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems unlikely that most people searching for "transparent electronics" will want an article on thin films. --Delirium (talk) 09:00, 11 November 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-targeted to Outgassing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off gassing does not refer to ERU, and is factually wrong to redirect it in such a way. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to outgassing? --Delirium (talk) 08:43, 11 November 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. Red link preferable to misleading redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BIPV are only one class of these panels 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So use the editing tools that you already possess and write a disambiguation or an article documenting all of the other classes. You don't need an administrator to fix this problem. You need to write content. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 12 November 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-targeted to Photovoltaic module. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photovoltatic cells are not a topic covered in this article, and crystalline PV cells do not necessarily use silicon. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've retargeted it to Photovoltaic module... but it's not all that likely a search term. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 04:43, 13 November 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) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

optical concentrators are also other things besides magnifying glasses, which we have articles on, particularly in optical communications technology 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So write an article on the subject telling readers this. You have the editing tools. You don't need administrative tools to fix this problem. The goal is to make the encyclopaedia better, which you won't achieve by not writing the things that you claim are missing from the encyclopaedia and not improving the parts of the encyclopaedia that are incomplete. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can think of nothing encyclopedic to say about "optical concentration" except the self-evident "things that concentrate light". The redirect was created by an editor who has exhausted my ability to assume good faith. Given the user's pattern of contributions, this is better returned to a redlink. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 13 November 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-targeted to Silicon#Purification. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two concepts are not logically equivalent, and one is not a subset of the other. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Silicon#Purification? --Delirium (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Delirium. It's the only logical action here. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 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-targeted to Hardware store. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blatant advertising NPOV violation 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to home improvement? --Delirium (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hardware store, of which Home Depot is also cited as being one in the article (not relevant, I know... but a nice coincidence nonetheless). 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've boldly retargeted to hardware store. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 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 Speedy Delete. Alexf^(talk) 12:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NN garage redirect to generic article, advertising, WP:NOT a directory 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. --Delirium (talk) 09:07, 11 November 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 speedy delete as implausible redirect. ... discospinster _talk 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has nothing to do with the other 70.55.84.27 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't see any plausible article at that location, since it's a really generic concept of costs being, well, on par. Not sure a redirect to cost would be particularly useful either. --Delirium (talk) 08:41, 11 November 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) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only type of foam plastic, not even close. 70.55.84.27 (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So turn it into a disambiguation for the other types, or even an article on the subject. Why do you think that deletion is the answer? You yourself have all of the tools necessary to fix your problem. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should such an article exist? You can foam just about *any* plastic. I thought Wikipedia was not a dictionary, if I article-ize it, it will be a dictionary entry. 76.66.192.6 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't. This is too broad a topic for a redirect, let alone a standalone article. The number of types of plastics has grown exponentially over the past century and a half - too many for a dab page. Delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's generally a very bad idea to redirect a general term to a more specific one. B.Wind (talk) 03:33, 14 November 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. Moved to WP:TFSA & links updated. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the TF pseudospace means, but it is an improper CNR to a non-content wikiproject. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - TF:SA is shown as a short cut on the target page. Reserving recommendation for the time being, except to recommend input from the members of the WikiProject. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figured it out, it means Task Force. I think they can get along with a WP: prefix like all the other Wikipedia: pages. MBisanz ^talk 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until orphaned. While this is too recent to trip my personal threshold for historical value, it had some relevant usage in internal discussions. Breaking the links would obscure the context and explanation behind the editors' thoughts and make future interpretation of those discussions significantly more difficult. We ought not to gratuitiously break those internal links.
  Once the page has been orphaned, consider me an "abstain". Rossami (talk) 18:15, 11 November 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. No consensus for deletion & not likely to conflict with article content. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navel gazing CNR to a wikipedia page, does not link to content. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for a self-referencing article here. We try to avoid it whenever possible. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a CNR that is helpful and makes sense. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:56, 12 November 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) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a Wikitalk page, proper usage is WT: not WPT: MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct shortcut exists at WT:TENNIS. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Uncle G. WPT:#### should be eliminated since WT:#### serves its purpose. B.Wind (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 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 delete. Wizardman 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR to a wiki talk page, also non-intuitive to topic. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct shortcut exists at WT:X. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Uncle G. The WPT: prefix should be eliminated since WT: exists. B.Wind (talk) 03:41, 14 November 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 speedy delete per WP:SNOW; clear delete. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda subjective, huh? Also links to no content. Daimore ^msg 02:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke this redirect - it's a shame that it doesn't fit a CSD category, but clearly this is most useless (this could just as easily point to Jack Bauer, Audie Murphy, or Tamerlane, for example. B.Wind (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a case can be made for calling it vanadalim and therefore deleatable under G3. Same applies for the one bellow. --76.71.208.254 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke this redirect - Personally, I'm surprised that this was not Speedy Deleted. Obvious vandalism. VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This and the one immediately below were created by a user who has since been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet. I also could see an argument for speedy-deletion as vandalism, though to me it looks more like a case of poor judgment. Regular delete would be fine. Rossami (talk) 14:45, 11 November 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 speedy delete per WP:SNOW; clear delete. Lumped in with above "best warrior ever" discussion. ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 21:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Subjective, links to nowhere. Daimore ^msg 02:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke this redirect - see discussion above. B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 11 November 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

his daughter 68.37.149.120 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• … whose naming is discussed in the target article. Uncle G (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn Smith. Redirecting non-notable family members to their notable spouse/parent/child/significant other is an accepted way to prevent the recreation of material that does not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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