Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastards (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 keep per WP:SNOW. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bastards (disambiguation)

There is no reason to keep this page. Everything in it can be mentioned on the page Bastard, as this is an extremely short disambiguation page. So delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disambiguation is cheap, especially when the page isn't in the way of any other page. Abolishing it would mean expanding the disambiguation template at the top of Bastards from one item to four items - enough to create a disambiguation page. Since bastard=/=bastards when it comes to topic names, merging this disambiguation page into the existing disambiguation at Bastard would serve only to confuse whilst increasing the size of an already long list. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redvers. Four items is more than enough for a disambiguation page, and bastard is very long as it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's six items now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Question: do disambiguation pages go here, or to Miscellany for Deletion? At any rate, brevity is not necessarily cause to delete a disambiguation page, which are brief by design; being useful is enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first Bastards article that was written has now been added to the list (I will now be fixing the broken links that moving the page created.--Alf ^melmac 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember correctly you reverted the move I made several months ago. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, and I did consider doing so again today, as why should I have to go fix what someone else breaks? - See my recent contributions - all the "fix links" was becuase of the page move.--Alf ^melmac 15:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to worry about me, next time I move a page, I will make sure there aren't too many pages linked to it first, I promise. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you all saying that this nomination sucks? Is that what you all mean? Because I thought I was doing the right thing by nominating this, I mean, I have noticed that extremely many disambiguation pages get merged. So are you all guys saying that this nomination sucks? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're (well, I'm) saying, having read your nomination, that I don't agree that the dab page should be deleted. Nothing more should be inferred beyond what is written. Sometimes people agree with you, sometimes people don't. Sometimes all people don't. But it doesn't mean the nomination sucks, just that folks don't agree with the reasoning. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see a reason why it can't stick around. It is very specific that it is the plural of the word and that they (singular/plural) are considered different based on what links there are to them.--Pmedema (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess this is one time where the Bastards do win? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above that Bastard is already an extremely long disambiguation and adding the plural to it would only burden it further and make it harder to navigate. Redfarmer (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because (1) disambiguation pages aren't articles, so ArticlesForDeletion is the wrong place and (2) it has three dab'able terms and is therefore a valid disambiguation page. Note that I have cleaned up this page per MOS:DAB a few minutes ago, leaving only three+one terms. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation articles are articles. They live in the main article namespace. And the appropriate venue for discussing their deletion is AFD. Uncle G (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.