Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GADS

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GADS

Disambiguation Page With Links to 6 Non-Existent Pages (Red Links) Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try tagging it for speedy deletion as no content.21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks-I wasn't sure about this one.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it is a disambiguation page, it is not eligible for CSD A3. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Curses, foiled again. :) Dloh cierekim 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought maybe as it's all red links . . . . Dloh cierekim 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The next time that either of you happen upon a dangling hyperlink in a disambiguation article, instead of reaching for a deletion nomination template, try looking to see whether you can write the missing articles. Many times dangling hyperlinks in disambiguation articles are good faith indications of articles that we are missing. Your first step should at the very least be to see whether the encyclopaedia can be bettered by writing. We're here to write, remember. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only redlinks. Dloh cierekim 22:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to keep per blueing of redlinks Dloh cierekim 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EGADS! (Might have come from here.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GADSooks! is it a Copyvio? Besides, Wikipedia is not a random collection of acronyms. Dloh cierekim 23:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only red links. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I count three blue links. It's a perfectly valid disambiguation article for (at least) three conflicting acronym redirects. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2009 (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.