Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Davis (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 (Non-admin closure) Obviously, speedy keep per snow. Let's wait until any other articles may no longer exist, okay? --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Davis (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation page. There is only one Sharon Davis with an article and a "not to be confused with" hatnote should suffice in case someone wants to find the Shar(r)on Davies'. Tavix | Talk  19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Four valid entries (per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, two very valid see alsos, easily misspelt as Sharon Davis - clearly not a case for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete with haste. This disambiguates nothing. If you have one blue link and three reds, what does it navigate? NOTHING. This should not exist until at least one other redlink is made blue; currently it's putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you looked at the guidelines? See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It still looks stupid and pointless to have only one blue link on a dab page since you're pointing people to nowhere. Why not kill it until after the other people have their own articles? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I take that to mean you've read the guidelines and see that it meets them? There is clearly not one blue link on the page - there are six, so it clearly points someone to a choice of places. If you disagree with the policy, you should suggest changing it and trying to build up a consensus for that on the relevant Wikiproject. Not try to speedy delete a page which meets the current guidelines, which are born out of consensus. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per MOS:DABMENTION the 3 red-links are perfectly valid. I think the red-links themselves should possibly be removed so it fits in with one link per line. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The three redlinks just barely clear the notability bar and have acceptable secondary bluelinks. The spelling variations are a definite plus. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; all filled up now. bd2412  T 23:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow keep now that the articles exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this perfectly valid disambiguation page. Lady  of  Shalott  03:50, 25 April 2012 (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.