Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ink stick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Inkstick. Since everybody seems to be cool with this and it's already been done let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ink stick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Do we need a disambiguation page for 2 articles? – a note at the top of each one with a link to the other would I would have thought. Only 1 article is linked so far to this page. wintonian talk edits 07:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect after a hatnote is added to each article. Redirect should probably point to Inkstick. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to nom: You could have redirected yourself. I doubt anyone would object. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason was I didn't think a disambiguation page was necessary but I forgot to think about redirection as possibility. Note: the redirection/ deletion have been contested by the creator on the talk page so I'll move the discussion over there and try for consensus before re-directing. --wintonian talk 04:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've commented there too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason was I didn't think a disambiguation page was necessary but I forgot to think about redirection as possibility. Note: the redirection/ deletion have been contested by the creator on the talk page so I'll move the discussion over there and try for consensus before re-directing. --wintonian talk 04:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (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.