Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Dwarf

Currently, this is a disambig page for two articles, but not necessary. Need to delete Red Dwarf so as to move the content of Red Dwarf (TV series) there. A simple disambig message can be added to it to point to the article on the Red dwarf star type. Done -- Netoholic 02:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I just turned Red Dwarf into a redirect to the TV series. Yeah, the "(TV series)" is redundant, since the type of star is not capitalized, but it's also harmless. Redirect(ed) and keep.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:52, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. You made that change before people had voted, and gathering votes was the intention of this page.  Now everyone interested in the star goes straight to the TV series first.
 * No, that is not the best way of handling this. Red Dwarf (capitol D) needs no disambiguation, so it should not have it. It doesn't matter that it's "harmless", we should use the simplest title. This is especially important because there is information about a movie based on the series, which will eventually be added. It will be nice to not have to make a 2nd article for just the movie. -- Netoholic 04:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: I would have much rather seen the real thing, the star, as the primary article.  People searching for the British comedy show ought not have priority, in my opinion.  I prefer the old schema, where Red Dwarf was a disambiguation page to ensure that we didn't get frustrated college students cursing us to the dark place for making them look at TV stuff when they wanted a quick explanation of the star.  If one group has to be annoyed, I'd prefer it be the fans.  Geogre 04:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) (feeling empiricist)
 * Information about the star type is at red dwarf. The TV series is called Red Dwarf. Both will have messages refering to the other at the top. -- Netoholic 04:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment; no vote. "Red dwarf" has 34 links to it from the article namespace. "Red Dwarf (TV series)" has 125 links to it from the article namespace; the majority of these links go through the redirects "Red Dwarf" and "Red Dwarf (television)". The star meaning seems a little more "encyclopedic" to me, but the TV show is apparently a more popular topic. IMHO, a disambig with only two topics isn't a bad thing, although it's not strictly necessary as the two articles can reference each other. &bull; Benc &bull; 05:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: is it possible someone will someday write an article on Red Dwarfs (from Narnia)?- if so, we'd then have three articles to disambiguate, which is probably more than we would want to do in the top-of-the-page disambigs. -FZ 12:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There is also Detroit's Nain Rouge (which means literally "Red Dwarf") as long as we are considering disambiguations. Fire Star 14:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This doesn't need to be a VfD discussion. If we decide that the TV article belongs at Red Dwarf (and I think it does) then an admin can make the move without going through VFD. I'll be happy to do it myself if that is the consensus. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Geogre. Plenty of people looking for the star will type in "Red Dwarf".  They should get, in my order of preference, (1) the star, with a disambig line at the top for the TV series; or (2) a disambig page listing both meanings. JamesMLane 09:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Red Dwarf should certainly be the TV show, with a note at the top for people looking for red dwarf. If deleting is the way to go about this then delete.&#8212;Rory &#9786; 16:08, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)