The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many historically significant people named John Beauchamp and this link may cause confusion. Flozu 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. We don't seem to have articles on any John Beauchamp besides the target (there are a few incidental mentions in other articles), so at the moment, it's fine. If any other John Beauchamp gets an article, it's easy enough to disambiguate it then. Gavia immer (u|t) 18:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I just used this redirect looking for this figure, and looking for a name is much simpler when it's just two words. Looking for "John Beauchamp, 3rd Baron Beauchamp de Somerset" in the search facility is not very practical. As above, if any other articles are written, it can be turned into a disambiguation page. Bob talk 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - grubber 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was 4 deleted & remainder kept. I have deleted the three that were actually tagged with ((rfd)) plus the user talk page. The remainder were never tagged for deletion and target article contains content related to the redirect. It would be inappropriate to delete them without them being tagged. Without notification of possible deletion, if anybody finds them useful, they wouldn't know to voice that here. Anyone is welcome to tag them and re-list on the current day. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mechanics of the "Mew glitch"
• Pokémon glitches/Missingno.
• Missingnumber and MissingNumber
• Missing Number and Missing number
• Missing no. and Missing No.
• Missing no and Missing No
• MissingNO. (improbable capitalization / potential R3)
• User talk:213.64.195.212 (double redirect / cross-namespace)
• けつばん

A sampling of redirects created during the fights over the notability of various glitches found in the Pokémon video games. Potentially implausible titles, POV forks, and pokécruft. --Stratadrake 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete that noise. — Randall Bart 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them... why is a user talk page pointing to an article? What happens if someone wants to leave that user a message? – Qxz 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable church deleted unanimously per AFD recreated as a redirect to the town where it's located. No mention of the church in the target article.--Tdl1060 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subject – Qxz 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Ilfracombe#Religious as it is discussed there. -- JLaTondre 14:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another deleted article of a non-notable church recreated as a redirct to where its located, again no mention of the church in the target article.--Tdl1060 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subject – Qxz 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Ilfracombe#Religious as it is discussed there. -- JLaTondre 14:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article of a non-notable church recreated as a redirct to where its located, again no mention of the church in the target article. --Tdl1060 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subject – Qxz 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable church deleted unanimously per AFD recreated as a redirct to the town where it's located, again no mention of the church in the target article. --Tdl1060 21:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable subject – Qxz 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - grubber 00:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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