Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2+2


 * 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 Speedy keep - this is a disambiguation page, it's not just an "outlet for vandalism". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

2+2

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page appears to serve no purpose other than as an outlet for vandalism. If someone is capable of reading wikipedia, are they likely to need to know the answer to an elementary school (if not kindergarten) maths problem? Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) I can haz review plz? 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — actually this is a disambiguation page with three meaningful entries in addition to the maths, which itself (the maths) makes some kind of sense there as an intro to the disambig page. When the deletion nomination was made, two of the definitions and their links were absent because of several vandalistic edits which the nominator presumably hadn't seen. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a disambiguation page. 2+2 has multiple encyclopedic meanings. Maybe they are not represented properly on the page currently but this should be included. DegenFarang (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DELETE. If someone cannot add 2 + 2 then I doubt they can read a Wikipedia entry about it. This is a pointless waste of computer memory. Georgiamonet (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly acceptable disambig page to other topics which deal with the disambig title.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. For all those who say the answer is obvious, please note that we have a page that says 2 + 2 = 5. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be a case of someone inventing an ambiguity so that they can create an unnecessary disambiguation page. Mandsford (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.