Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendor


 * 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. KTC (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Vendor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a case of WP:TWODAB: The page contains only two disambiguation targets. We can use hatnote disambiguation instead. I recommend deleting and then moving vendor (supply chain) in its place. Page view stats suggests that the latter is the primary topic. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. One primary topic and a hatnote-in-waiting. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Until this edit on August 26, Vendor was a redirect to Vendor (supply chain) and had been without any fuss since at least February 2008. Restore the redirect and then separately propose moving Vendor (supply chain) to Vendor. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can I suggest an amendment? It we do exactly as you suggest, we need a second deletion discussion! But if we delete and move, the effect would still be the same as you suggest, right? Just the closing admin here would graciously do the move too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that moving an article is a common outcome from AfD discussions. Editors that pay attention to requested moves might not pay attention to AfDs. Unless there is wide participation in these AfD and strong consensus develops to both delete and move, then there might be basis to question the move as out of process. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Myself, I'd have slapped a speedy deletion db-move template on it per G6. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to but I am afraid it would have not been granted. Someone reversed the redirection. Assessing admin would have taken that as a sign that a speedy-deletion per G6 is not a non-controversial technical move. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support whatever process will end us up with an article at Vendor (the one currently at Vendor (supply chain)), with a redirect to Arkansas. Probably simplest would be to withdraw this AfD and then do a WP:RM to move this article to the primary topic title. Pam  D  13:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi. Normally, a WP:RM would be rejected on the grounds that it is not a technical non-controversial move. A requested move discussion can also not be held because this is not about renaming a page to one that is already held by its redirect. The correct course of action is this AfD: We already have WP:TWODAB as a valid reason for deletion. Once it is deleted, any autoconfirmed user can move Vendor (supply chain) to Vendor.


 * What amazes me most is that everyone here supports the intended result (meaning that we have a consensus) only some insist that I travel a longer bureaucratic way. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2013 (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.