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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale-breasted[edit]

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

This dab lists only partial title matches, which are proscribed from inclusion on dab pages by the relevant guideline. A large batch of such dabs was deleted in 2011, and this one probably should've gone too. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also this RfD for further discussion. What I would like to reiterate from there is that a reasonable editor could remove the partial title matches and tag this page with ((db-disambig)). --BDD (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedyable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove all the content from a page while it is being discussed at AFD. None of the entries needing disambiguation is a valid reason to suggest the page should be deleted, but other people need to see the content to make their own decisions (while they can look at the history, not everyone will think to do so). The page certainly isn't speedyable as having no content, as it had content until you removed the content. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove all of the content. I remove the entries from a disambiguation page that would be removed from any disambiguation page per the disambiguation page guidelines. I then removed the disambiguation page tag, since it was not a disambiguation page. This is why it was speedyable and prodable -- once cleaned, it has no content. Since those avenues inexplicably did not yield the correct result, we're at AfD, but that doesn't mean we can't clean up the page per the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD here is the solution to the page being a disambiguation page with no entries that need disambiguation. Turning it into a page with nothing but a "see also" link clearly isn't fixing the page in any way, as such a page also shouldn't exist. You weren't fixing anything by making that edit, and edits like that make it harder to have a legitimate discussion since some people will look at the page and not realize that it previously had other content. Also, the speedy deletion criterion A3 clearly isn't for deleting articles that do have content, even if you think all that content is bad. The prod of the article was entirely appropriate though. Calathan (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it exactly the way it would be fixed if it were tagged with ((disambiguation cleanup)). ((db-disambig)) G6 criteria apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only partial match entries. This one's for the birds. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bikini#Bikini_tan as the only thing this title could refer to without being a partial title match. Neelix (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No MOS:DABMENTION of "pale-breasted" there. The reader would be better served by reaching the search result (which is what will happen once this page is deleted) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to that article so that the required (and relevant) mention is there. It seems preferable to me to direct the reader to something that is not a partial title match rather than to leave them to the search results which will primarily give them partial title matches. Neelix (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption that someone entering "pale-breasted" into the search box is thinking about bikini tans? It seems to me more useful to take them directly to the search results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of an article that would turn up in the search results that would be more likely intended target. Neelix (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and snow delete Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 - no content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the entries need disambiguation. I don't see a good reason to redirect this anywhere. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. (Thanks for linking the relevant guidelines, BDD; that made this an easy call). Agyle (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2014 (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.