Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Retarget to Delusion. This is a potentially useful search term for that target, and hence using it to redirect off to meta is completely wrong. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Since I agree with Gavia immer, I suggest retarget this redirect to Delusion. David Pro 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unnecessary CNR with no useful page history. I created the correct page at Wikipedia:Delusionism, which then soft redirects to the meta page. I also added shortcuts ( WP:DELU and WP:DELUSION), which should aid in navigation. I see that no pages link to the redirect in question, so I see no potential harm in deleting it. In any case, the closing admin should add a link to the now correct page during his/her deletion summary for users who find the page deleted. - Mtmelendez ^{( Talk)} 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tagged with {{ rfd}} but never listed here. I don't know what's wrong with it – Gurch 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• According to this page, poodle rock is a pejorative term for glam metal. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; no need to retarget anywhere. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ugly mainspace self-reference of the sort that should be avoided – Gurch 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; no need to retarget anywhere. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tagged with {{ rfd}} but never listed here. I don't know what's wrong with it – Gurch 17:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I assume the issue is the parenthetical disambiguation at the end, which is in an unusual form. More importantly, it's not spaced, and that makes it quite unlikely to be used (especially in combination with the capital M in "Movie"). While this was the original title of the article, there's no useful history at the redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep because it documents a pagemove early in the article's history and pagemoves are generally considered useful history. Also, it doesn't meet any of the "delete if" criteria for redirects. My opinion is "weak" because the pagemove is documented in the pagehistory and the move was conducted the same day the article was created. However, the original editor does not appear to have returned to the page since and may or may not know about the corrected title. Rossami (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Gavia immer; the combination of the lack of a space prior to the parenthetical disambiguator and the erroneous capitalisation of "movie" makes this an unlikely search term. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, multiple errors in title, unlikely to be useful. GregorB 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Polish spelling redirect to article currently discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno was recently created by User:Piotrus to make a WP:POINT there   Matthead  ^discuß!      O       15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. M.K. 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. - Darwinek 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Darwinek and Piotrus. Tymek 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep name of event in its local language should be redirect to English name. Carlossuarez46 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tag with {{ R from alternative language}}. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Another Polish spelling redirect to article currently discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Wilno was recently created by User:Piotrus to make a WP:POINT there   Matthead  ^discuß!      O       15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. M.K. 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. - Darwinek 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Darwinek and Piotrus. Tymek 19:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my comments above - diacritic on the n is not an easy character to make on many keyboards. Carlossuarez46 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and tag with {{ R from alternative language}} and {{ R from misspelling}} ({{ R from title without diacritics}} does not apply since the target – Operation Wilno – does not use diacritics). – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Yet another Polish spelling redirect created by User:Piotrus when he was at it   Matthead  ^discuß!      O       16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. M.K. 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- this is a perfectly valid redirect. A user may very look for this article under this spelling, and needs to be redirected. So what's the problem? Turgidson 10:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. --  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  14:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is no problem with it, I do not understand this proposal by Matthead. Tymek 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per AfD. - Darwinek 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my comments on the prior two. Carlossuarez46 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

There has been an ongoing edit war regarding this redirect. It has been switching back and forth between War Hawk and Warhawk (disambiguation). As blocks for 3RR violations haven't caused the folks to stop and discuss it, I'm bringing it here for wider community input. Procedural nomination with no opinion on my part. -- JLaTondre 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) The redirect and the disambig spelling are identical, and I believe all disambig links are relatively noteworthy. The less contentious option is to let the reader decide which article they are looking for, since it's pretty hard to guess with these articles. - Mtmelendez ^{( Talk)} 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) I agree let the reader decide which one they want. -- Vdub49 02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete and move Warhawk (disambiguation) to Warhawk. Pagra shtak 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) or delete for the reason User:Pagrashtak said. Can't believe that guy that kept redirecting it got me banned for two days.-- Playstationdude 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) After looking at the disambiguation page, it is clear to me that someone searching for "Warhawk" could mean one of a few different things. Clearly a disambiguation page is more than justified. DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) Too many topics, should allow user to choose John.n-irl 18:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• replace with dab 132.205.99.122 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why on earth would you redirect it? Pagrashtak made the correct suggestion - move the dab page there. That is the structure supported by WP:DISAMBIG. violet/riga (t) 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Warhawk (disambiguation) - Let user decide which page they want. -- ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply