Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longhaul

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 merge to The Long Haul. There is already an extant hatnote at flight length pointing to The Long Haul dab page, so will make the necessary changes there. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longhaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one accessible article linked to this disambiguation page Robvanvee 19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to flight length and hatnote as necessary. Siuenti (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Were additional entries looked for before nomination? This has 3 valid entries (one per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION) and a valid see also. If there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then that's a separate point for a move discussion, not AfD. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's enough here for a disambiguation. That being said, I could see it being merged with The Long Haul, especially because that dab includes just about every entry that the nominated one contains. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging would be perfectly valid. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Robvanvee, Siuenti, could you please look the page over and see if you have changed your mind now it is so different to when nominated? Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it looks better now. Thanks for that. When I nominated it there was only one clickable link and, being new to WP:NPP, I assumed deletion was in order. You'll be glad to know I skip past the disambiguation pages now. Robvanvee 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also, I agree with Tavix, it would probably be better to merge it with The Long Haul for the same reason they stated. Robvanvee 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still think that flight length is the primary topic but I guess that's a question for Requested Moves. Anyway deletion is not appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal that combines a few ideas I've seen here. What if we redirect "longhaul" to flight length with a hatnote there linking to The Long Haul and expand the scope of that disambiguation to include "longhaul" (and variants). Thoughts? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be fine by me. Siuenti (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (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.