The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Town Roads in Batu Pahat → List of roads in Batu Pahat (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. implausible search term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I agree. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wp cpp → Wikipedia:WikiProject Cal Poly Pomona (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not sure why this redirect was created. WP:CPP makes sense, but Wp cpp in the article namespace? Seems like an unlikely search term (page views stats proves that) and it doesn't seem beneficial to keep around. — ξ^xplicit 05:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It requires only one more keystroke (on a standard QWERTY keyboard) to type "Wp:cpp" as opposed to "Wp cpp" (the "Shift" key in order to produce the colon), and that's not worth having an unused cross-namespace redirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, and Black Falcon. Rehman 15:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirected from → Redirect (links to redirect • history • stats) 

No useful incoming links and very little of page view statistics; appears to be more of a joke redirect (that is, (Redirected from [[Redirected from]])). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - incoming links are not relevant to redirects. No doubt created as humorous but since it is entirely harmless and could conceivably be useful there is no policy basis for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Incoming links are not crucial for a redirect (but they are a factor, I think), but the combination of no useful incoming links, very low usage, and implausibility as a search term is enough for me to support deletion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Black Falcon, since this is in the mainspace. If it were in the form of "WP:Redirected from", then I'd say keep. Rehman 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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