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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. Contains only two entries, one of which (Deep One) has its own disambiguated article. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why not? They have similar titles, and the articles' validity aren't being challenged. I can easily see someone looking for one and getting the other, and not knowing how to go about finding it. I say keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byEsprit15d (talk • contribs) .
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.
