Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Ought to be in Pictures

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 Redirect to I Ought to Be in Pictures. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-13 21:19Z

I Ought to be in Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Had the title of this article been punctuated correctly, I would have found it and not created a new one at I Ought to Be in Pictures. As it stands, the one I created is far more complete and includes the few facts mentioned here. SFTVLGUY2 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to I Ought to Be in Pictures which is what the nominator is referring to. --Metropolitan90 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to I Ought to Be in Pictures Jeepday 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. WjBscribe 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect and close. I created a redirect of I Ought To Be In Pictures and stumbled onto this AfD. Redirects are created all the time for punctuation errors, and this is no different. I boldly redirected the page. Tinlinkin 03:11, 12 February 2007 (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.