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 Redirect to Crash. Although someone might conceivably type this string into the search box, the redirect target has a superset of the information they want, and it is easy to find within the page with a text search. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-10 20:48Z

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

Let me explain the background of the situation. Initially, there was Crash (novel) and Crash (1996 novel). For the sake of uniformity, I moved "Crash (novel)" to Crash (1973 novel), and then corrected the inbound links to point to the correct article. In the meantime, I have made "Crash (novel)" into a disambiguation page, however it's not likely to be an accidental link and only disambiguates two articles, which is unneeded. I've created this AFD so I can get help in determining whether to delete this page, to redirect it back to Crash, or whatever. In the meantime, I am voting neutral. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think your current solution is fine. Bwithh 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is good. -- Ben 05:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People who know their way around Wikipedia might very well type in "Crash (novel)"... redirecting this to crash or keeping it as-is would both be fine. -- SCZenz 09:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the current disambiguation page. Axl 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Crash (where both novels are already properly linked) or prefereably delete. I doubt anyone is going to type "Crash (novel)" as a search term rather than "Crash". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  I might. Anyone who edits Wikipedia and knows our naming conventions might. And surely thre's no harm in keeping the page, is there? -- SCZenz 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no problem with having a disambiguation page; as noted above there are people who know Wikipedia enough (especially those involved with the Novels WikiProject) who will type Crash (novels). This is also of use for wikilink-sorting. Plus, this will also assist anyone creating articles on any other novels by this title (and there are probably others). 23skidoo 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this novel disambiguation page, it is plausible that someone could enter this in as a search term. (jarbarf) 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good solution. Philippe Beaudette 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Crash - disambiguation is a good solution, but this is redundant to the disambig that page does. GassyGuy 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, I don't see a need to duplicate content for an unlikely search term. hateless 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirecting to Crash would be less helpful, obviously the reader is looking for information about a novel named Crash, not everything under the sun that might pertain to a crash. RFerreira 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. --MaNeMeBasat 13:58, 10 February 2007 (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.