Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for disambiguation

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 00:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation[edit]

Current sub-articles by the same author:

Useless instruction creep. Just do the disambiguation, or bring it up on the talk page, or if it gets heated take it to WP:RFC. --SPUI (talk) 00:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete per SPUI. See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:VfDis. —Korath (Talk) 00:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Somebody told me to create this article when I started the votes for disambiguation article to state information on how to do it. --TheSamurai 01:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
please delete. Earlier I left notes about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and on the talk page of the creator, User:SamuraiClinton. No response yet. See also Wikipedia:Votes for disambiguation/Super Mario Bros.. I think there was one for Boom Boom but it seems to have been deleted already. FreplySpang (talk) 01:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Uneeded policy creep.--ZayZayEM 02:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Disambiguation should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the relevant users. —Sesel wa 05:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Requested moves, and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Votes for disambiguation?? for a discussion about this page. Rhobite 05:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary. Dave the Red 06:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not needed and POV about VFD. Mgm|^(talk) 08:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete and delete - David Gerard 09:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have not seen any cases where creation of disambiguation pages has gone totally wrong, and if it goes wrong it is easy to revert. Sjakkalle 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's enough bureaucracy already; the system doesn't seem to be broken, so why use red tape trying to fix it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Heck no. Delete. Radiant _* 13:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unnecessary. After so many articles on VfD, most of them deleted, after so many notes left on his talk page, I begin to doubt SamuraiClinton's good faith in these posts. If someone wanted to start a "VfDis" project, I would expect him at least to discuss it on VfD's talk page - by the way, there has been recent discussion about whether the deletion process as a whole works. Why was this never done? I certainly appreciate boldness, but in this particular case it looks like the creator might already have imagined this idead wouldn't find too much support amongst VfDers. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what SPUI said. Major policy proposals and new voting pages are an area where one should discuss and build consensus first rather than being bold. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not needed. --Carnildo 18:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons given above. DreamGuy 19:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as above. SteveW 20:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be an attempt at circumventing VfD policy. android↔talk 22:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Process circumvention. If you want to disambiguate a page, just do it (after appropriate discussion if needed). Be bold. Firebug 09:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per User:SPUI. Also delete the subarticles. --cesarb 02:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete it, twice. --Wgfinley 20:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.