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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thick and thin[edit]

Thick and thin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Redundant disambiguation page that doesn't point to a single article. I tagged this for a speedy as G6, but it was removed by someone claiming this was a normal disambiguation page. I've seen thousands of disambig pages, I've never seen one like this, not one that didn't get speedied anyway. I have no idea what someone's motivation would be to make a disambiguation page when there are no articles to disambiguate. The creator says this is the same as Snow (disambiguation)... except there are over a dozen articles called Snow. Crazysuit 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless disambiguation page. Very odd, looks like the author has searched Google trying to find anything to add to the list, a "A pejorative sobriquet for David Beckham and Victoria Beckham" said as a joke in a TV show once? Oh dear. Saikokira 05:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Whatever was worth transwiking to Wiktionary got carried over long ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick and thin (phrase) and wikt:Transwiki:Thick and thin (phrase) for the AfDed article. Funny why no one noticed this page, which is supposed to be where thick and thin (phrase) got split off from, back then. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 11:26Z
  • Keep WP:DAB#Disambiguation pages allows the linked word in any entry not to be the word/phrase being disambiguated, "as long as the term in question is actually described on the target article". So we already have three existing articles there which contain the phrase "thick and thin". That makes it worth disambiguating per the guideline. I'd throw out the Beckhams' entry, though. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 11:39Z
• Weak keep per resurgent.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see people searching on any one of these contexts - even the redlinked ones. This is clearly a useful disambig page, and if the disambig page is going to stay up there's no harm in leaving the dicdef there as well. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; I was the one who removed the speedy tag. Bear in mind though that it had been tagged for 12 hours and no admin had been prepared to touch it. As far as I can see this is a potentially useful page and the question is - what good does deleting it do? Bridgeplayer 20:05, 23 April 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.