| Revision as of 19:36, 24 April 2012 editBoleyn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers307,295 edits →Sharon Davis (disambiguation)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:52, 24 April 2012 edit undoGimliDotNet (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,019 editsNo edit summaryNext 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) | ||
| *'''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 link. ]</font><sup> (],])</sup> 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:52, 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)
- 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 link. GimliDotNet 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)