Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Rice Camps

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - The user has been nominating redirects for deletion and seems to have messed this one up, no harm done though. It would appear the user meant to nominate the redirect "Edmund rice camps" for deletion not the article. Message left on user's talk page. Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Rice Camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? This isn't a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the nominator may mean "Edmund rice camps"? It is a redirect, with quotation marks Fosnez (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Ditto the first response. Please clarify - having many redirects is no grounds for deleting a worthwhile (if perhaps underdeveloped) article. Are you simply wanting to reduce the number of redirects to this article? If so, I'm sure there are more appropriate procedures available than an AfD request. Rob Lindsey (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Huh? Maxamegalon2000 06:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.