Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aardwolf (disambiguation)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aardwolf (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unneeded disambiguation page for which a speedy deletion request was declined. The redlinked items are to articles that have been deleted, and the two bluelinked items can be easily distinguished with hatnotes. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (One hatnote only, per WP:NAMB.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no need for a disambiguation page for 2 articles, a hatnote is just enough. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion on deletion; the only reason that I declined it is that it didn't fit either of the criteria spelled out by the db-disambig template. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on whoever made the recent additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the recent additions. Is there some reason you're pretending not to be aware of this? Also, redlinks with additional context are still redlinked, and they are redlinked due to deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true, a red link with a blue ancillary link, is a valid link. If it isn't please quote from the rule directly. As is a valid see also link. I didn't add the new entries, I just cleaned them up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge I would merge the money shot with this article. King Ruby (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you left this comment in the right place? That doesn't seem like a relevant merge. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it belongs to the Afd below. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep With multiple articles sharing the same title, a dismbiguation page is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Alansohn. Having this disambig now seems justified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a third article was created, and with it is a good disambiguation page. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * keep - There are three articles that all have AArdwolf, disambiguation page is useful.  GB  fan  06:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, a legitimate disambiguation page. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:34, 10 October 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.