Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runglish (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runglish (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambig contains 3 entries. The first is an article, that's fine. The second looks like pseudo-information referring to the first usage; it was actually brought in as unreferenced from the article - I can't see any encyclopaedic value to it, and if anywhere, I'd think it should belong in the article. The link to Volapuk...there is no mention of the term in that article, nor can I find a connection (from a reliable source. In conclusion, I think this page can just go. "Runglish" only seems to really mean one thing - a cross between Russian and English. It's also potentially derogatory, so I don't think we should have unreferenced claims via a DAB page. Chzz ► 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found two pieces of information in Runglish that didn't belong there. Since I didn't want to be the person who deleted that information from Runglish, and therefore from Wikipedia, I created Runglish (disambiguation) and added the questionable information there. If that information must be deleted, it's okay with me. HaŋaRoa (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A disambig page is supposed to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles that use the same term, so entry 2 shouldn't be there. Entry 3 makes no reference to "Runglish". That leaves just one article, so no disambig needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entry 2 isn't a link, so remove it. Entry 3 doesn't mention it, so remove it. Which leaves us with just one entry - so remove the page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a case where someone creates an ambiguity in order to clear it up. I don't see anything that justifies a disambiguation page. Mandsford 20:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 2nd and 3rd entries are invalid. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2010 (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.