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 delete. W.marsh 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifer (disambiguation)[edit]

Crucifer (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is an orphaned disambiguation page. It serves no purpose; no user is going to enter Crucifer (disambiguation) directly, and neither Crucifer nor Cruciferae links to this page (nor should they). Readers seeking Crucifer will go to that page directly; Readers seeking Cruciferae will go to Crucifer and follow a direct link from there. Hence this page is superfluous. This is a contested prod. Vectro 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Vectro 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure what the reason is, looks like a standard disambig page to me. Wildthing61476 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an orphaned page with a (disambiguation) title, which means nobody is going to find it. Vectro 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure it helps to have formal disam pages when there are two items & no real potential for more. A disam link at thetop of each page might do. -- Not that this one p. is important, but there are many similar. DGG 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that today Crucifer already links to Cruciferae, though in the past it used to link to Crucifer (disambiguation). Cruciferae is actually a redirect to Brassicaceae, which IMHO doesn't need a link to Crucifer, though one could be added if needed. Vectro 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- Seed 2.0 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just went through the relevant histories and talk page conversations and I don't see a reason to keep the disambiguation page either -- the direct disamb links look fine. If there's ever a need for a disambiguation page (not that I can see that ever happening in this case), it can be recreated and the appropriate moves can be dealt with at that point. On a more general (OT) note: figuring out if a dab page is indeed necessary obviously requires human interaction but the actual compilation of a list looks a task a bot could accomplish. There will obviously be plenty of false positives but the whole thing requires human review anyway so I reckon that's not really a problem. -- Seed 2.0 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Slavlin 02:05, 18 May 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.