Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fappani

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 with leave to recreate if someone finds some blue links to populate it with. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fappani[edit]

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

I'm all in favour of dab pages, but this one leads nowhere. Literally - every link on the page is a redlink. If it was about the origins of the surname, then it might make sense, but I don't see that there's much point in this page, certainly not in its present form. Grutness...wha? 04:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Grutness. I've always had an aversion to Deleting WP articles, especially as deletion is frequently used as a means of censorship or simple pettiness. But, as you point out, this pointless article is WP:RoadToNowhere. I support its deletion. BlueRobe (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only live link was an article which was deleted some time ago. Yworo (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Fappani-cruft. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing to disambiguate. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 22 September 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.