Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplicator

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 of the debate was Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. I am redirecting there because the content from this article was merged into Calvin and Hobbes. It needs to be redirected there to preserve GFDL (well, that's what I think, anyway). --Deathphoenix 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicator

It was agreed to merge the information on this page with the Cardboard Boxes section of the Calvin and Hobbes page. The information on the page is now redundant and since the strip is no longer active, there is no potential for expansion. Delete. —simpatico ^hi 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Redirect and suggest nom take a look at Wikipedia:Redirect. Nifboy 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that redirecting the word "duplicator" to a Calvin and Hobbes page would be a very good idea. Whoever's searching for it may not be looking for something Calvin and Hobbes related, and if they aren't familiar with the strip, it'd be very confusing for them to be sent to the C&H page after searching for, say, a machine that duplicates things (or whatever, I don't know). This is especially so since the information on Calvin's Duplicator is quite far down the C&H page. However, more experienced Wikipedians may disagree. —simpatico ^hi 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Replicator (Star Trek). Ruby 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But the Duplicator is a Calvin and Hobbes creation and has nothing to do with Star Trek - that doesn't make sense. —simpatico ^hi 06:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying the Calvin and Hobbes duplicator is so not-notable it's better to use the article as a redirect in case someone is looking for the star trek replicator but types duplicator by mistake. Ruby 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've never heard of the Star Trek replicator, but nevertheless feel the Duplicator would kick its ass. :) Obviously, people's awareness of these fictional objects varies, but since "Duplicator" and "Replicator" are not the same word and do not refer to the same, or even related, things, it doesn't make sense for the former to redirect to the latter. If any redirect is done, it should be to the C&H page. —simpatico ^hi 08:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seeing as there are two different opinions, disambig it. Stifle 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig is fine, though I've never heard "duplicator" for star trek replicators. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 06:08Z
• Disambig per Stifle. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:26, 26 January 2006 (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.