- 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. Wizardman 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- War Inc. (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This disambiguation page merely links to two articles. These have already been amended to directly link to each other rather than this page, removing the extra step. Steve T • C 07:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page. I did so in case more than two "War Inc." pages were created. As it's been awhile and that hasn't happened, I don't see a reason why not to simply cross link them, as Steve's done. Support EvilCouch (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G7 - I don't even think consensus is required, the original author agrees with the nominator's decision and its not even a real article, just a disambiguation. Atyndall93 | talk 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone have any objections if I perform a non-admin close on this, then stick it up for a CSD G6 or G7? Steve T • C
- I've tagged it for G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I wasn't sure if that could be done while this AfD was still in progress, which is why I held off. Steve T • C 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it for G7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone have any objections if I perform a non-admin close on this, then stick it up for a CSD G6 or G7? Steve T • C
Keep : I find disambiguation pages quite handy and see no reason for this page to be deleted.
- The reason for it to be deleted is that no-one will ever navigate to it. Both War Inc. and War, Inc. contain disambiguation links to each other at the very top of their respective articles. Steve T • C 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although I have often found two-item DAB pages to be useful and have created a few myself, these two titles are so close that a cross-reference DAB line on each article is sufficient. Of course if someone manages to find a DAB-able Wikipedia article (not a redlink) that can be added to this page, then change my opinion to keep. 23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Generally disambiguation pages are created so that there is no more than one hatnote at the top of an article's page. In this case, it's not needed and merely creates a superfluous click step. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dab page made redundant by hatnotes on both articles mentioned in it. Should there be more "War Inc."'s, this can be recreated with minimum effort, but anticipating it would be crystal balling. B.Wind (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (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.