Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyphonic ring tone

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polyphonic ring tone

Delete after merging usable contents with ring tone.--Wtshymanski 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Far easier to merge and redirect than to delete, and the term seems legit. Meelar (talk) 05:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect --Halidecyphon 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with ringtone --nixie 06:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ring tone. Megan1967 08:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Is viable term. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the term is in very widespread use, at least in the UK. Thryduulf 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Good example of a title that is useful as an "index entry" (redirect), for content that much more sense in the context of a larger article than it does by itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to ring tone, there's nothing to merge, this is a flat copy of content already there. I also agree with Dpbsmith, this is good larger context title. --bainer 00:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.