The result of the discussion was snowball delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is silly and unnecessary. While it does seem vaguely related to AFD, it seems very unlikely that anyone would search for this or link to it. Unscented (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke from orbit - unlikely search term/link target, probably a joke. Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete game over, man. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's take off It's the only way to be sure.--Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 24 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what to do with this redirect. It currently points to James Horton who is a fictional character, so it is incorrect. IMDB lists two actors named James Horton, but none of them is especially notable or deserves an article. It probably should be deleted, but I'll leave the decision to you. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, what happened here was that in April 2008, User:Sweetmoose6 did a copy-paste move of the character's article into the obviously inappropriate disambiguated "actor" title, and turned the plain title into a disambiguation page with judge James Edwin Horton. I simply did a history merge to reunite the edit histories, since the move was done improperly. No objection to deleting the redirect. I'd also have no objection to moving the article, provided it's done properly, to a more appropriate new disambiguated title and turning the plain title back into a dab page again, but that's not really RFD's job to deal with. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is no appropriate destination. PaulJones (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PaulJones. B.Wind (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Terraxos (talk) 01:25, 28 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 snowball delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only decade-redirect with this nomenclature. It's more likely that someone would type 1480s (decade). NJGW (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A little too unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not likely or useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if a disambiguated title were necessary for some reason, it would be "1480s (decade)" per NJGW, not this. I've fixed two internal links from articles that actually were using this title, for the record. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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