Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status Quo (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. This is the strangest AFD I've ever seen. I've made this close without consideration for the MFD which I am considering another discussion. Feel free to DRV if anyone disagrees. v/r - T P 03:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo (disambiguation)

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

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Status Quo (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:

Per WP:TWODABS, this dab page is not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DAB is needed to resolve a conflict in naming between 5 subjects. The DAB has been vandalized to remove the additional subjects to make it look as if it is a DAB for only 2 pages. Check the history of the DAB and you will see. AQBachler (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is your favourite argument when someone does not agree with the stuff you add to the dab page to puff it up to make it look like it is needed. This is called gaming the system. You added a nameless Boston dance group to the page and a NY restaurant article which does not exist just so as to puff it up to make it look viable. You even a added a ship without a corresponding article which was removed by another user. For your information the so-called vandalism you are referring to has been explained by proper edit summaries. This is called pointy editing. If you think I am vandalising your puffed-up piece please report me to WP:AIV. I would also duly caution you to cease these baseless claims. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your references please. The band was on a major televised show, so not exactly nameless. AQBachler (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant without having an article on Wikipedia and of uncertain notability. You should create that article first, prove it meets the guidelines for notability and then link to the article, after you create it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dab page is not needed for this yet. Warden (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only two actual articles in it, this dab page is not needed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Status Quo should redirect to Status quo. Both Status quo and Status Quo (band) already have hatnotes for easy access to either article. However, keep in mind that there are a lot of incoming links to Status Quo which need to be changed to Status Quo (band). A bot will be required for this task, please ask someone at WP:BOTREQ. —SW— ^confabulate 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and —SW—. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied discussion)

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussion. The phrase and the band appear to be the only uses requiring disambiguation. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more than two articles. I found six, all extant and distinct articles, which I've added to the DAB page. Even if the phrase is deleted there will still be five. There's also Status quo ante bellum but that has its own DAB page so I've added that (although that DAB page looks unnecessary - if it's deleted Status quo ante bellum should be added here too).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough similar terms to create confusion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the main article on status quo is kept, this disam p. is necessary, for there a a number of similar terms that must be distinguished. If it is kept, this can possibly be turned into a suitable hatnote, but it would be rather complicated. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 12 September 2011 (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.