Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender history (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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Transgender history (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:DISAMBIG, the article about the Transgender history is clearly the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote on the top about the book will do. There is no need for a separate dab page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. — MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an unnecessary disambiguation page as a hatnote is sufficient for navigational purposes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This type of disambiguation page is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No preference. I can see the arguments on both sides, and neither resolution will bother, or excite me much. 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: unnecessary and provides potential for confusion (eg if someone adds a 3rd sense of the topic to the hatnote at the primary topic but the orphan dab page doesn't get updated) Pam  D  09:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per above. Very unnecessary as it is the topic itself. Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk→  Be a guest 10:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't really want to get into the broader WP:TWODABS argument, but this case seems pretty clear-cut. There's an unquestioned primary topic, exactly one secondary topic, and unlikely to be additional senses of the phrase added in the near future. That means a hatnote can handle it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (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.