Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara and Jenna Bush

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. Sango 123 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara and Jenna Bush[edit]

Unneeded, just like a Plusle and Minun page would be. The two subjects are strongly related, and one could take the time to go to Barbara Bush or Jenna Bush anyway. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SliceNYC 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Waste of space. No need for redirect either. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spurious article -- Whpq 01:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: since the contents of the two articles were once here before being spun off, does this page need to exist, if nothing else, for the history, per the GFDL? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Redundant mboverload @ 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Nothing to merge, redirect would be fruitless. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No longer needed now that Barbara and Jenna each have their own articles. If the GFDL requires that the history be kept, turn it into a redirect to Bush family, but only if needed by GFDL. --Metropolitan90 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Daniel's page ☎ 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. -- RattleMan 06:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Redundant. ShaunES 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (you guessed it) redundant. —Khoikhoi 07:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (Neostinker 10:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete redundant Martinp23 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant – they have their own article, bless their little bootses! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very redundant. StuffOfInterest 13:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly redundant. Consider redirect only if people think users will actually search for "Barbara and Jenna Bush" collectively instead of just "Barbara Bush" or "Jenna Bush" alone. My guess? Will never be typed into the search box, and thus no redirect necessary. --CPAScott 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that it's going to be of any help. (Wondering why everyone is using the word redundant when you could just say unnecessary and still get the same meaning =]). --Nishkid64 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dev920 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, did anyone saying delete actually READ the page? It's a disambiguation page pointing at the two seperate articles. Whoever first created articles on the "first twins" created ONE article, which was then (rightfully) split into one on each sister. As is unfortunately true of most twins, a great many people think of them collectively, and when looking for information on them would natrually do a collective search. Checking the "What links here" gives us 53 pages including (tellingly, if you ask me) Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Popular pages. To delete this disambiguation page would be a mistake, leaving stranded anyone looking for information about the Bush twins. At the VERY LEAST it should become a redirect pointing at SOMETHING where people can find what they are looking for. Otherwise it would be left open for the creation of redundant articles. (P.S. Redunant and unnecessary aren't exactly the same). ONUnicorn 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt that anyone would type Barbara and Jenna Bush or Jenna and Barbara Bush on a encyclopedia for that matter. Perhaps a delete, then a redirect set to Bush family may suffice? --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 12:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bush family per ONUnicorn. This is a search term that will get a good bit of use. Jacqui ^★ 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ONUnicorn - --Ageo020 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should never have been created as one article in the first place. The edit history should be saved, so make it a redirect to Bush family, rather than either one of them. Bush twins is a redirect here, btw. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Richard 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to a Bush family page or something. Deletion is not an option by the GFDL. Ardric47 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me, I think it is high time we broke out the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen article into seperate pages. They're not infants any more; they've each made significant achievements on their own, and are now on top of a multi-billion dollar empire thanks to their numerous product lines marketed by Wal-Mart. GW can only dream that his daughters will ever achieve such success. RFerreira 21:48, 18 August 2006 (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.