The result of the debate was speedy delete all, per WP:CSD#R1. Singularity 02:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faie → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clone trooper commander → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Bacara → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clone trooper commanders → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clone Troopers → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Cody (Star Wars) → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clone commanders → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clone Commanders → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain "Jag" Jai'Galaar → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Ball (clone pilot) → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Commander → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Fox → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Gree → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clone commander → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gree → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Bly → List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders[edit]

Redirects to AfDed page; no apparent more appropriate target. EEMeltonIV 21:27, 9 August 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 delete. WjBscribe 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete - there is no such word as "televisionography." Nothing links here following the substitution of the target article's name in the navtemplate except one user's archived talk page and no one is going to type this in as a search term. Otto4711 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me think, there are plenny of silly words I can think of when televisionography is used. Cartoonography, moviography, comedgraphy, musicgraphy, WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?! This is ridiculous. As ridiculous as my examples. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlazikenMaster (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 August 2007

  Comment. A Google search for televisionography reveals 160 hits. However, the question relevant is how many that aren't on Wikipedia, and 14 of them are on Wikipedia, and so the number of hits the term gets is 160 - 14 = 146. Georgia guy 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, only 160, it isn't notable unless it has at least 500 Google hits. TheBlazikenMaster 09:53, 11 August 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 retarget to Nursery school. WjBscribe 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

• A misspelling of a term (note the HTML comment in the header containing a 3-letter combination I learned the meaning of in Wikipedia) re-directing incorrectly. Georgia guy 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nursery school. Conceivable spelling error, but this is a better target.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think both child and nursery school are good possible targets. Preschool and the recently created preschooler both redirect to nursery school. However, the term "preschooler" would refer to a human subject, which might best be represented by the child article. --- RockMFR 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Marlith ^T/C 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nursery school. --Hyperbole 19:44, 14 August 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 delete. Per WP:DPR#RFD, I will move the page's history to Talk:Shock site/Last Measure so that it is preserved for GFDL purposes should the merged content be restored at some future point. WjBscribe 00:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Last Measure became a protected redirect to Shock site at the close of an AFD. Last Measure is not mentioned at shock site and there is no reasonable expectation that it meets either notability or verifiability. At this point it is one of a series of redirects that seem to cause confusion when editors get redirected to Shock site and don't actually find any information about the term that redirected them there. I'd say it is a fairly useless redirect and should be deleted at this point. Isotope23 ^talk 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem I can see is that content from Last Measure was merged into shock site, but was removed a few months later. --- RockMFR 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah it was apparently removed for failing notability and having no reliable third party sources. I nom'd this because at this time I see no reason to believe it will be added back any time soon and the redir is just creating confusion.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just wondering about maintaining the author history. --- RockMFR 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that still an issue if the content has been removed and there is no reasonable expectation the removed content will ever be restored? I know we need to keep clear history for GFDL, but I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on how that would impact content that only appears in the article history.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The current revision of shock site is a derivative work of earlier revisions of shock site, which (in turn) was a derivative work of Last Measure. The fact that the GFDL relies so heavily authorship in terms of derivative works is extremely annoying for documents with a significant number of modifications from several unrelated authors. Gracenotes^T § 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Protect (along with last measure) to prevent further mischief. Whether the link is kept or deleted is of little consequence. --Aarktica 22:07, 10 August 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 delete. WjBscribe 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

This redirect and the one listed below it were created via page moves. There is no relevant page history that wasn't moved with the article, no incoming links, and it seems very unlikely that someone would include the years in a search for the CHUM Limited article. In fact, the years in this redirect are incorrect, the one below contains the correct date range for the existence of the company. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This and the 1945 one were both created by a user who mistakenly thought that defunct companies were supposed to have their years of activity inserted into the titles. There's no compelling reason for either one to exist, and very little likelihood at this point of there ever being another CHUM Limited to confuse this one with. Delete. Bearcat 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and Nick. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ground Zero. Marlith ^T/C 17:01, 10 August 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 delete. WjBscribe 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

This redirect and the one listed above it were created via page moves. There is no relevant page history that wasn't moved with the article, no incoming links, and it seems very unlikely that someone would include the years in a search for the CHUM Limited article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This and the 1957 one were both created by a user who mistakenly thought that defunct companies were supposed to have their years of activity inserted into the titles. There's no compelling reason for either one to exist, and very little likelihood at this point of there ever being another CHUM Limited to confuse this one with. Delete. Bearcat 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and Nick. Ground Zero | t 03:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ground zero. Marlith ^T/C 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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