Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowest common denominator (disambiguation)

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest common denominator (disambiguation)[edit]

I have no idea why this prod was contested. Unneeded disamb page with 2 items. Replaced links to page with hatnotes on each page pointing to the other. Atmoz (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just merge it all into one (at Lowest common denominator). It is kind of redundant to have parts of Lowest common denominator in separate articles. Versus22_talk 06:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what's wrong with the disambig page, it disambiguates between two different meanings of the same term. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See WP:MOSDAB; we don't have disambiguation pages for topics with less than three articles. Also, I'm kind-of concerned about the notability of the recently added second page, i.e. Lowest common denominator (computers). It seems to be a fairly simple commonsense application of the idiom wikt:lowest common denominator (meaning 2) to a specific topic that should be blatantly obvious to anybody who knows anything about that topic. Maybe it should be covered in compiler or a related article, but I don't think it warrants a standalone. JulesH (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a third possibility, namely the Wiktionary entry. It is also the obvious target for the redirect of Least common denominator which is an almost equally common version of the phrase. Hatnotes would get ridiculously complicated trying to cope with all of those. Anna Rundell (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOSDAB and JulesH. THF (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace by hatnotes on the two articles. But do not perform Versus22's suggested merge: the articles are on completely different subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the computers article, I'd say. LCD is a familiar grade school concept, so slang use goes beyond computing and really should be mentioned in the main article. WillOakland (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there's been no notice on the computer article and it's not an official part of this nomination, I think it would need a separate prod or afd. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place hatnotes on each other. §hawn poo 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid disambiguation page with two valid bluelinks to two standalone articles. I was the one who contested the prod as disambiguation pages are not articles. WP:DAB does permit disambiguation pages with as few as two bluelinks - in fact, I understand there are over 6000 dab pages with exactly two blue links in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then by tomorrow there will be over 6000 afd's §hawn poo 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with hatnotes. Shame we have to do an AfD for this sort of cleanup. SMSpivey (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2009 (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.