Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Post Facto


 * 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 Ex post facto law, per unanimous consensus here including the nominator. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ex Post Facto

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It meets the criteria of Template:Db-disambig except the page name does not end in "(disambiguation)". I prodded the article, but it was removed. Rockfang (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages do NOT need to end in "(disambiguation)", I don't know where you read that. Since you offer no reason for deleting this page, I have to say Strong Keep and speedy close unless a deletion reason is given.  TJ   Spyke   20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I never stated that dab pages need to end with "(disambiguation)". WP:CSD has "...deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages..." as one of the examples for that criteria.  The template used to mark that example is Db-disambig.  That template states "...disambiguates two or fewer Wikipedia topics and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)...".  That is why I mentioned "...the page name does not end in "(disambiguation)"".--Rockfang (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with a redirect to Ex post facto law. TJ, the reason for deletion comes from the relevant guideline, WP:D, which states, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." Ex post facto law is the obvious primary topic here, and because only two things are being disambiguated, a disambiguation hatnote is the most appropriate solution. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed a valid conclusion, however why delete the article to recreate it right away with a redirect? It can be converted to a redirect without deletion, which is why I contested the proposed deletion. Extended rationale below. --Taelus (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally have no problems with simply redirecting the present page; however, I am not the nominator. If Rockfang agrees to a redirect, this AfD can be closed immediately thereafter. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and discuss via another procedure. I understand what you are saying, but by deleting the article it will leave nothing behind. If you wish to move the primary topic to this location, then there is a more suitable forum for that at Requested Moves, if you want to redirect it to one of the two, and place a hatnote instead of using a disambiguation page, then feel free to do so. I contested the prod because deleting it like this will only leave a confusing "This page does not exist on Wikipedia" result for those who search for the term. --Taelus (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ex post facto law. I think Willoughby and Taelus  basically agree on this (and they are right), though obviously as Taelus says deletion is unnecessary.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator Redirect - Redirecting makes sense.--Rockfang (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirected and closing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:07, 11 January 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.