Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field & Stream (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 speedy keep. Note that the nominator withdrew in a later comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Field & Stream (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:TWODABS. Only has two topics and one of them is primary already... Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also the very similar Fields and Streams which may confuse readers. The magazine may be at the primary page, as it was created first, as it seems to be misplaced. Page view statistics for both are similar (especially significant bearing in mind many people wanting the retailer's article end up at the magazine by default, inflating the statistics. A Google search for 'Field & Stream magazine' receives over 8 million hits, but for the retailer, there are over 12 million hits. The magazine should be moved to Field & Stream (magazine) and the dab kept to show readers the three possible pages they may be looking for. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clarityfiend added one more blue link and I used Dabfix and found 4 more valid entries. Were other entries looked for WP:BEFORE nomination? Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. I misread the magazine title. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goose is cooked. Sure, withdraw the nomination. But what's Dabfix? Might be useful in the future. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan, [1] dabfix will tell you if there are missing entries, it's really useful. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 28 April 2016 (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.