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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde motion (disambiguation)

[edit]

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

Having a disambiguation page here incorrectly suggests that there is an ambiguity here, where there is none. "Apparent" retrograde motion is merely the appearance of retrograde motion, and is only a partial title match; it is no more ambiguous to retrograde motion than Penrose stairs is to stairs - something that merely gives the illusion of being something else, and not an unrelated topic that just happens to share the same name. Also, nothing links here, and anyone searching for Retrograde motion will correctly be taken to Retrograde and prograde motion, which already has a hatnote to Apparent retrograde motion. bd2412 T 18:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The partial title match problem is debatable, but as there are only two entries and the two articles in question already have hatnotes to each other, I think this can be deleted per WP:2DABS (or maybe speedied per WP:CSD#G6 ?) as an unnecessary dab page. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until there's a band called Retrograde Motion (oh, there is such a band[1] but it's not thought notable), this page is unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unneeded, redundant, orphan page. I tagged it with G6 but someone argued that the entries are ambiguous. — Reatlas (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not arguing that the entries are ambiguous -- I was only pointing out that CSD seemed inappropriate as there already was a full AfD underway and that discussion can determine whether the entries are ambiguous and whether the page is needed. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh...so you don't think it's ambiguous but still contested the G6 on behalf of someone who hypothetically might? It doesn't seem like something particularly controversial to me. — Reatlas (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems a speedy delete would have been uncontroversial. Not everyone has endless time to discuss things. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Well covered with hat note. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Point to consider: This item is an example on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. So the guy who deletes it will need to fix that page. GroveGuy (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting in that this is provided as an example of a page that can probably be deleted, but for reasons other than my nomination rationale, which is lack of actual ambiguity. bd2412 T 00:10, 6 October 2013 (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.