Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis (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 of the debate was Deleted... eventually.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   19:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wenis (disambiguation)
This disambiguation page is redundant and superfluous now that Wenis (once again) refers only to the Egyptian pharoah. Disambiguation page was made necessary when Nickmanning214 recreated the wenis neologism page which had previously been AfDed, speedied as hoax, and finally (just this afternoon) speedied as a repost. I recommend deletion of disambiguation page and protection against reversion. Charles 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This is just commonsense (and needed) cleanup of a disambig page. Though I admit that the word "Wenis" makes me chuckle a little when I pronounce it in my head. -- Docether 19:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy G6 per nom. Tevildo 19:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete--Nick Y. 01:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. There is no criterion under which this article qualifies for speedy deletion. Uncle G 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is - G6. "... removing a disambig page that only points to a single article." Tevildo 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This disambiguation article points to two articles. Always read the article being nominated.  Uncle G 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. It has two entries on it, but both point to the _same_ article.  Thank you for your advice, but I can assure you that I, at least, took steps to verify that my opinion falls within the rules before posting it. Tevildo 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It had two entries linking to two different articles: one linking to Unas and the other linking to Wenis (which, at the time, was a redlink). Uncle G 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete with extreme predjudice. --DarkAudit 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 13:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Qualifies under nonsense and vandalism as the added page was nonsense. --DarkAudit 16:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with Patent nonsense.  The page at hand is not patent nonsense, as it is easily comprehensible.  Do not conflate patent nonsense and nonsense.  Only the former is speedily deletable. Uncle G 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was the added page that required the disambig page was nonsense. And NN and failing WP:NEO. --DarkAudit 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was wrong.  was not patent nonsense either.  And in any case it is not a criterion for speedy deletion of an article that another article is patent nonsense.  Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * speedy delete under G6. I removed the link to wenis from the dab page since it redirects to the same article as the link. I presume this now an uncontroversial delete? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. There certainly seems to be no disagreement as to whether the page should be deleted. ---Charles 03:31, 29 June 2006 (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.