Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 22

January 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2009

Wikipedia:Let's take off, nuke the article from orbit. It's the only way to be sure → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
 The result of the discussion was snowball delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 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) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Nuke from orbit - unlikely search term/link target, probably a joke.  Richard 0612  22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete game over, man. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's take off It's the only way to be sure.--Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

James Horton (actor) → James Horton
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC) 

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)
 * 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)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as there is no appropriate destination. PaulJones (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per PaulJones. B.Wind (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Terraxos (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Decade (1480s) → 1480s
 The result of the discussion was snowball delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * 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)
 * Delete A little too unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not likely or useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)