Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skirt and dress


 * 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 Dress. To preserve attribution after the content move, but consensus is that this is not needed as a disambiguation page.  Sandstein  08:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Skirt and dress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It baffles me as to why this article has remained, even as a disambiguation page. It does not actually reduce any sort of confusion for the reader, and rather further confuses them. According to the talk page, the page was originally an article, when the topics of skirt and dress were on this page; the topics were separated into the current articles. A redirect to either page does not work since the title of this page does not weigh to one article or another. Finally, it does not seem to be the correct use of a "disambiguation" page, per WP:D.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 06:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there's anything page-history-wise that needs to be preserved. Very unlikely search or link term, with no incoming article links (besides redirects, none of which have any incoming links at all). ansh 666 06:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: not strictly a disambiguation page, but a navigation tool from a phrase, "Skirt and Dress" which multiple editors in 2005-2007 obviously thought was a sensible title for a Wikipedia article. If the article had been moved to a new title there would be a redirect. As it was divided into two articles, a page leading to both seems appropriate - a sort of forked redirect. Possibly needs a redirect from "Dress and skirt" too. Pam  D  09:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reason: Many things, arbitrarily or not, can be "strung together". This was a mistake years ago.  To keep this article, by your arguement, is to open the door for more of these pages and for editors to make silly circuitous pages like this.96.52.0.249 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete If one goes into the article history in search of the editing wisdom of the ancestors, what one finds (if one approaches it with an open mind) is that they were in no way wise. What happened was that someone started skirt, and someone else decided for no good reason to tack dress onto it, so someone moved the whole thing to this name. Searching for the phrase produces nothing but incidental juxtapositions, as one might expect. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I usually refrain from posting "IDONTLIKEIT" comments but.... this is utterly pointless - Anyone wanting the dress or skirt articles would go to one of them...... Seeing no point to this whatsoever. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:XY, which is meant for redirects that can equally go to two separate places but it applies here (IMO). Those redirects get deleted because we don't (and shouldn't) create pages like this. It's unnecessary and pointless. Tavix | Talk 01:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * strong keep or strong redirect - this article has been merged into dress (see) and should be keeped or if its deleted dress should be deleted too by copyright reasons. Christian75 (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2015 (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.