| Revision as of 20:05, 24 April 2012 editTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers278,917 edits →Sharon Davis (disambiguation): r← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:48, 24 April 2012 edit undoBoleyn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers307,299 edits →Sharon Davis (disambiguation)Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| :*'''Comment''' Have you looked at the guidelines? See ] and ]. ] (]) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | :*'''Comment''' Have you looked at the guidelines? See ] and ]. ] (]) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::*It still looks stupid and pointless to have only one blue link on a dab page since you're pointing people to nowhere. Why not kill it until ''after'' the other people have their own articles? <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ::*It still looks stupid and pointless to have only one blue link on a dab page since you're pointing people to nowhere. Why not kill it until ''after'' the other people have their own articles? <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::*I take that to mean you've read the guidelines and see that it meets them? There is clearly not one blue link on the page - there are six, so it clearly points someone to a choice of places. If you disagree with the policy, you should suggest changing it and trying to build up a consensus for that on the relevant Wikiproject. Not try to speedy delete a page which meets the current guidelines, which are born out of consensus. ] (]) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' as per ] the 3 red-links are perfectly valid. I think the red-links themselves should possibly be removed so it fits in with one link per line. ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' as per ] the 3 red-links are perfectly valid. I think the red-links themselves should possibly be removed so it fits in with one link per line. ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:48, 24 April 2012
Sharon Davis (disambiguation)
- Sharon Davis (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation page. There is only one Sharon Davis with an article and a "not to be confused with" hatnote should suffice in case someone wants to find the Shar(r)on Davies'. Tavix | Talk 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Four valid entries (per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, two very valid see alsos, easily misspelt as Sharon Davis - clearly not a case for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete with haste. This disambiguates nothing. If you have one blue link and three reds, what does it navigate? NOTHING. This should not exist until at least one other redlink is made blue; currently it's putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Have you looked at the guidelines? See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It still looks stupid and pointless to have only one blue link on a dab page since you're pointing people to nowhere. Why not kill it until after the other people have their own articles? Ten Pound Hammer • 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I take that to mean you've read the guidelines and see that it meets them? There is clearly not one blue link on the page - there are six, so it clearly points someone to a choice of places. If you disagree with the policy, you should suggest changing it and trying to build up a consensus for that on the relevant Wikiproject. Not try to speedy delete a page which meets the current guidelines, which are born out of consensus. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as per MOS:DABMENTION the 3 red-links are perfectly valid. I think the red-links themselves should possibly be removed so it fits in with one link per line. GimliDotNet 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)