Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages (0th nomination)


 * 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 keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Links to (disambiguation) pages
What an overgrown list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.137.5 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. It floods system resources, and is somewhat redundant to Category:Disambiguation. (unsigned comment from anon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.137.5 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Floods the system and dosen't serve any real purpose. Dan M 21:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. StephenJMuir 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is not an article. it is in the Wikipedia namespace. as such, it should be being debated on Miscellany for deletion not here. Take it there Grutness...  wha?  05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a most useful project page. It is meant to avoid having disambiguation pages cluttering Orphaned Articles, since normally they are not linked from anywhere else. Without these pages Orphaned Articles would become almost useless. PLease read: Disambiguation and Links to disambiguating pages. Nabla 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. --Carnildo 04:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful project page. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nabla. Good thing I asked him. -- Kjkolb 07:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep concur with Nabla. slambo 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nabla. Xoloz 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. BD2412  talk 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I wish people would quit using "speedy keep". We have no such thing. --Woohookitty 04:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Nabla. Tito xd (?!?) 01:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nabla. It's definitely useful, "overgrown" isn't a deletion criteria the last time I checked. ;) --Andylkl (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2005 (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.