- 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The result was withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 06:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- 94th Regiment of Foot (disambiguation) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The two links that exist go to the same page. bojo | talk 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nominator: Per changes made. bojo | talk 00:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I am writing a series of articles on British Regiments and have today written two more articles on regiments which were numbered the 94th: consequently this page now diambiguates at least three different regiments. Dormskirk ( talk) 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. It looks like Dormskirk is in the process of creating four articles, three existing so far. I presume the one redlink will turn blue soon. I revised at the disambiguation page to remove pipelinks so that it now shows the titles of the articles, in accordance with disambiguation page MOS / guidelines. -- do ncr am 17:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like the nominator was mistaken. In the version that they tagged, it looked like the first two links (which were then the only two bluelinks) went to the same page, because of pipelinking. It is understandable that the deletion nominator thought they went to one page, but in fact they went to different pages. Now there are four pages, all bluelinks, and the disambiguation page is clear about that. User:bojo1498, could you please withdraw your deletion nomination so that this can be closed, and so that other editors don't have to keep arriving and considering the merits here? -- do ncr am 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion nominator responded and withdrew their nomination (thanks!), above, and there are no votes besides "Keep". This is ready to be closed by anyone. -- do ncr am 04:53, 18 April 2017 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.