Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of the Academy
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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gallery of the Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dab page for only two entries, hatnote should be used. —fetch·comms 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would be a standard editing procedure. You don't need AfD for it. If "Gallery of the Academy" is a possible search term, then it should not be deleted anyway, but at least be a redirect. Ty 02:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? We can't redirect to both pages, so which would you propose redirecting to? —fetch·comms 20:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, if there is a primary topic, then that is where the page can redirect. The notion of deleting the page is fundamentally flawed, as without it, a reader searching for the term would get a nil result, as neither of the two articles on the disambig page has the same name as the disambig page. If there is not a primary topic, then the best and easiest solution is simply to leave the page alone. It's not doing any harm and could do some good. Ty 22:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Ty's comment. Mal-formed nomination. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No valid reason shown for any other course of action. Ty 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and let it be...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as it appears that there is no clear primary topic -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Accademia as primary topic, because there is no indication in Accademia delle Arti del Disegno that it is ambiguous with the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as disambig page. It is also a conceivable search term for the Royal Academy, which I have added to the page. Ty 16:47, 7 June 2010 (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.