The result of the discussion was delete all.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Christina Anderson → Comair Flight 191
• Tetsu Kono → Comair Flight 191
• 光野菜穂子 → Comair Flight 191
• Rebecca Adams → Comair Flight 191
• Tetsuya Kono → Comair Flight 191
• Nahoko Kono → Comair Flight 191
• Kono Nahoko → Comair Flight 191
• Kono Tetsuya → Comair Flight 191
• 光野哲也 → Comair Flight 191
• Jeffrey Clay → Comair Flight 191
• Kelly Heyer → Comair Flight 191
• Lyle Anderson → Comair Flight 191
• Anne Marie Bailey → Comair Flight 191
• Bobbi Sue Benton → Comair Flight 191
• Jesse Clark Benton → Comair Flight 191
• Carole Bizzack → Comair Flight 191
• Brian Byrd → Comair Flight 191
• Homer L. Combs → Comair Flight 191
• Karen Diane Adams Combs → Comair Flight 191
• Fenton Dawson → Comair Flight 191

Delete. If these people were mentioned in the article the redirect might make sense (only James Polehinke → Comair Flight 191#Survivor does), but they're not. It can cause confusion with other people (with the same names) who are actually mentioned on Wikipedia. Either delete, or make all these articles into stubs, etc. As it stands, these redirects are just mysterious and unhelpful. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unlikely that anyone would search for individual non-notable victims. As noted above if they were mentioned in the it would be understandable, but as they stand now, they should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Redirects are cheap and those people were named in individual news sources (see for example [1], [2]). No need to delete them, they might be useful to some people. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because the redirects come with no explanation, they are actively harmful. E.g. The Shaggy D.A. links to a Christina Anderson (almost certainly a different one), and if these redirects are kept, following that link will take a reader to Comair Flight 191 with no explanation and no way to find out why. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, it seems unlikely that anyone would search for these victims, especially given that they're not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is a trend that, in aviation disaster articles with WP:GA status victims are mentioned in victim lists - See Gol_1907#Victims - This was made into a GA, so therefore any aircraft disaster could have a victim list. That would justify having these redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : But see Shreevatsa's point above regarding the greater (my view) possibility that searchers will be looking for people with greater notability and be mis-directed, without a clue, until (if ever) there is a list. BTW, can you point to any trend? The only current lists of victims (outside of their articles) seem to be relegated to well known people List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents or special types of victims List of deaths by aircraft misadventure --RCEberwein | Talk 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This, that and the other _[talk] 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete other than involvement in this one event, these people would be not be on WP, we don't need every event's victims to be redirected to the event (imagine 6,000,000 redirects to the Holocaust; a few thousand to 9/11; a few hundred to each big air or maritime disaster; etc.) WP is not a memorial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was G3 Vandalism redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect, no mention of Satan's toenails is made in the article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Vandalism redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep.(non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Delete please as an implausible redirect. Tavix (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GFDL-counseled history maintenance; a good bit of content was, AFAICT, merged from the former to its target. Joe 06:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jahiegel. Other "awards and nominations" pages do exist, so it's not like this is a terribly unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated for speedy deletion as unused and improbable. I tend to agree but R3 does not apply to it because it was created quite a long time ago. SoWhy 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete quickly. Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm trying to clean up WP:AVATAR, and stuff like this just gets in the way and clutters the categories. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree that this is unlikely to ever be a search term as such --RCEberwein | Talk 03:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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