Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweed River (disambiguation)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Tweed River. – Alphax ^τεχ 10:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Tweed River (neé Tweed River (disambiguation))

This has an identical article at Tweed River. Tweed River is a more suitable article name for this topic. Tweed River (disambiguation) is redundant. Alan Liefting 11:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

comment. This was never put on the vfd page. So. Here it is. :) --Woohookitty 07:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as Tweed River is already a disambiguation. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tweed River since some users might add a "(disambiguation)" if they are looking for a disamiguation page. No real harm in deleting this however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Although this was not noted properly in the edit summary, the text at Tweed River was copy&paste moved there [1] (from Tweed River (disambiguation)) by Alan Liefting (talk · contribs). Copy&paste moves are evil and should not be done. Wikipedia:Requested moves is on the next floor, first door on the right. The GFDL requires that we Keep the article. (For expediency, the closing administrator in this particular case could treat this nomination as a requested move and do the delete and rename. But having Wikipedia:Votes for deletion take on all of the Wikipedia:Requested moves traffic is not something to be encouraged.) Uncle G 12:04:41, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
  • Ah OK, I see. I have fixed the copy paste move now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As such, there is nothing to be done here. Tweed River now has the edit history, thanks to Sjakkalle. Tweed River (disambiguation) is now simply a redirect, that could be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but is pretty harmless and actually helps when {{otheruses2}} and its relatives are used. With the copy&paste fixed, the VFD notice is now on Tweed River. As far as I can tell, we all want to keep that. ☺ Uncle G 14:41:47, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Keep both all is now tidy and standard. -- RHaworth 17:22:59, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Dude, WTF are we voting for? Tweed River has an identical article at Tweed River????? It looks fine as-is, and the redirect works for me. Keep — RJH 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no need to break links by removing the redirect. Angela. 08:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.