Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. C. Penney (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Penney (disambiguation)[edit]

Unnecessary dab. All of these are just variations on the main topic, and are already linked from J. C. Penney. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Necessary dab. Especially for "J.C.Penney building" - 7-bubёn >t 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all dabs are keep, IMHO, unless they link to only one or two articles. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, but if it wasn't for the buildings, it would be a delete per Bearian's rationale. Maybe move to JC Penny Building? Recognizance (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would accept a move to J. C. Penney Building since there are multiple buildings with that name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like everyone agrees that's what to keep the dab for. The company and person already dab between one another, so they can be taken out per your nom (other than as the namesake of the buildings of course) when it's moved. Recognizance (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to say. James Cash Penney is already linked from JCPenney, so he doesn't really need to be in the dab. Just disambiguating among the multiple "JCPenney Building"s is all we really need Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

procedural Shouldn't DABs be handled at MfD not AfD?69.210.42.241 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been told that dab pages go to AFD even though they're not articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm new but WP:MFD says it's for "problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main namespace" (emphasis mine) while WP:XFD says AFD is for "all encyclopedia articles except for redirects" (emphasis not mine). So the IP might be mistaken, . We all agree on what to do at any rate. Recognizance (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since every one of these articles either is or should be linked directly from the main article on the department store chain anyway, the dab page isn't actually necessary at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 19 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.