Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings


 * 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   delete. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

List of disambiguation pages concerning siblings

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

We really don't need this. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless dab for more dabs. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A disambiguation page....about disambiguation pages? Really? This breaks so many rules it would make my head explode to list each and every one of them. (Let's see, there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT, WP:DAB...) Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete to retain sanity. See Russell's Paradox. MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per MuZemike, who sees where this would lead. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete First, let's be clear - double DABs are specifically permissible under WP:DAB in appropriate circumstances. But this goes a step beyond - "siblings" is too broad an umbrella term to be a logical extension of that policy guideline. Townlake (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I created the page with a very inventive rationale which was going to make life so much easier for many readers ... sadly I cannot remember the rationale so it may as well go (but I can't quite bring myself to vote for deletion, it would feel like infanticide). Abtract (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I can't help thinking that a category would work just as well in this case, and we have the added precedent of wikipedia-specific categories to justify such a page. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh brother!! I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did, but I can't figure out what this would be used for. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:14, 9 September 2008 (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.