Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Britain and Ireland: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Keep as "Disambiguation-plus" page. Not a fork.
Line 5: Line 5:
*'''Keep'''. The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the ''term'' "Great Britain and Ireland." It avoids content forking by limiting the discussion to that and contains links to the relevant articles for more substantive discussion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the ''term'' "Great Britain and Ireland." It avoids content forking by limiting the discussion to that and contains links to the relevant articles for more substantive discussion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this is not a content fork, although it seems a bit like a borderline disambiguation page. No reason to delete, and I don't even think a redirect is appropriate. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this is not a content fork, although it seems a bit like a borderline disambiguation page. No reason to delete, and I don't even think a redirect is appropriate. --[[User:Canley|Canley]] 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Could stand to have a reference or two, but I agree that this is not a fork and should probably stay as a useful "Disambiguation-plus" page. -- [[User:MarcoTolo|MarcoTolo]] 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:48, 13 February 2007

Great_Britain_and_Ireland

Great_Britain_and_Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a content fork with the page British Isles--Triglyph 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page briefly and usefully discusses use of the term "Great Britain and Ireland." It avoids content forking by limiting the discussion to that and contains links to the relevant articles for more substantive discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is not a content fork, although it seems a bit like a borderline disambiguation page. No reason to delete, and I don't even think a redirect is appropriate. --Canley 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could stand to have a reference or two, but I agree that this is not a fork and should probably stay as a useful "Disambiguation-plus" page. -- MarcoTolo 03:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]