Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Davies
- 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The result was Keep (withdrawn by candidate). I'mperator 00:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ken Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
disambiguation page with no linking articles Untick (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one content page links to it (referring to the Australian politician). Deletion may actually spur creation of an article for one of the notable listed Ken Davieses. -Drdisque (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Keep per creation of dabbed articles. -Drdisque (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep – The consensus at MOS:DABRL is that red links, if linked at other pages as they are for the politician and the hockey player, are valid entries on disambiguation pages. This page helps readers find further information about any of the three Ken Davieses, and helps if they are looking for a Ken (Kenneth) Davis, which is not an implausible typo. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an interesting interpretation of MOS:DABRL. No need for this page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to MOS:DABRL: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link [as it does in these cases]...To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page. A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links or have only one blue link in it, because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages. If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description[as has been done in each entry on this page].
Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information [has been done on this page].
All entries on this page meet this, all are mentioned on Wikipedia articles and this page gives people links to the articles that mention them, both by the blue links on the page and the 'What links here' function. Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks to Paul Erik, the red links have been turned blue, so the nomination rationale no longer applies. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator withdraws the nomination for deletion. My concerns for this article have been addressed. Thank you to Paul Erik for your good work in creating the two Ken Davies article stubs. Untick (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (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.