Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ingleby


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes other than the nominator (non-admin closure). Anupmehra - Let's talk!  23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

John Ingleby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not sure that AfD is the right place for this, but I can't think where else to go. This pages claims to be a disambiguation page, i.e. a page that directs readers to articles with the same or similar names. However, there are no articles named John Ingleby or similar (as the red links show) so there is nothing to disambiguate and thus no need for a disambiguation page. Emeraude (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is the right place to start the discussion. You can have redlinked entries, provided they have the potential to become articles and there are suitable blue links, per Red link (for the bishop, see, which has two paragraphs about his doings; some of these details are also in Ripley Castle). I've added those. (I'm not quite sure what the "onlyinclude" bit does.) I've also found a politician and a painter. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Please see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. User:Emeraude, when you've looked other the relevant guidelines, could you please look at withdrawing this nomination? Additionally, as creator, I should have been informed that this was nominated for deletion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: a valid collection of links to pages providing some information about these various people, and a way to help future editors ensure that they use the form of a name already established as a red link, rather than creating an entry at a new title. There's no possible benefit to the encyclopedia from deleting a page like this. Pam  D  14:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination. I was concerned that the page had NO blue link at all, and the guidelines mentioned do not clearly cover such a case. However, the work on the page by Clarityfiend and Boleyn has sorted this. And to Boleyn, my apologies for not notifying you. I should have done, but I'm currently using a lousy, constantly-crashing connection in France! Emeraude (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Thanks, I hadn't realised another user had removed the bluelinks from the page I originally created. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2014 (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.