Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Paterson

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. There were no arguments for deletion. Discussion of a possible merger with James Paterson can be initiated at the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Paterson[edit]

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

A basic disambiguation page which should be merged/redirected into James Paterson. There is no need for separate dab pages for all first name variances, especially with this one - are you really going to have separate dabs for James, Jamie, Jim, Jimmy etc.? Serve no useful purpose, and actually hinders navigation if you don't know what name-variant the person you are looking for is known by on Wikipedia Giant Snowman 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 valid entries, none of which appear to be Jameses. Jamie is a name in its own right, and for a boy and a girl. All 3 entries meet criteria, and there are 2 valid see alsos, to James Paterson and also the similarly pronounced Jamie Patterson disambiguation. Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James & Jamie are totally separate names, It's a valid disambig, with enough links. Some Jamie's may well get called James, but to bundle then together because they may happen is pretty pointless and in a lot of cases incorrect. See no harm in this at all. Blethering Scot 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Jamie [... is a] name derived as a pet form of James". It is not a valid disambiguation, it just causes more confusion. Giant Snowman 10:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot seriously say all Jamie's are actually called James. That's like saying all Mikes are actually Michaels, because it can be shortened to that. I know I hate that. Blethering Scot 10:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GiantSnowman, you missed off the end of that quote, which is: 'However, it has been used as an independent given name in English speaking countries for several generations. Though Jamie is originally exclusively male, it has also been used as a female given name since the 1990s, especially in Canada and the United States.' The Jamie name page lists several examples of women named Jamie and, like the three Jamies on the Jamie Paterson dab, male Jamies who appear to have Jamie as their names on their birth certificates. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GiantSnowman. These ever-increasing sub-dab pages do, indeed, hinder navigation and serve no useful purpose. The argument that some men are named Mike, Rob, or Willy, rather than Michael, Robert or William, or that some women are named Kathy, Cathie or Katty, rather than Katherine, Catherine or Kathryn, may be true, but that puts us in the untenable position of researching each entry to determine which form constitutes that individual's best-known name and then proceed to the reductio ad absurdum of segregating Billy Smiths who are William Smiths under the William Smith (disambiguation) page and Billy Smiths who are simply "Billy" under the Billy Smith (disambiguation) page (which, as of this writing, merges into the William Smith dab). As for the case at hand, a majority of the men listed under "Jamie" were, as might be expected, originally named "James" (Jamie Anderson (golfer), Jamie Allen (baseball), Jamie Bell, Jamie Carragher, Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dornan, Jamie Gillis, Jamie Hyneman, Jamie Kennedy, Jamie Langenbrunner, just to list the first ten among them). Although it is described as having become an "independent given name", the fact that it is a form of "James", analogous to "Jimmy" or "Jimmie", for many of those who bear the name, is the strongest argument for merging. Finally, where will all other variants (Jaime, Jay´mi, Jaimee, Jamee, Ja'mie, Jamey, Jaymie, Jayme, Jey´mi, Jeymi, Jeimy, Jeimi, or Jaymee) be appended? If there are notables bearing such names, will they be separated as "See also" on the Jamie Smith/Jamie Jones/Jamie Williams disambiguation page or will they be eligible for the James Smith/Jones/Williams dab? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't put us in an untenable position at all when their real name is Jamie. As for someone called Jamie, who gets called James well that's a situation already dealt with by reliable sources.Blethering Scot 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are those whose real name is "Jim", "Jimmy" or "Jamie", the fact still stands that the primary form is "James" and all the other forms are offshoots of "James". James Stewart was always billed as "James", but was usually referenced as "Jimmy" and there are lengthy discussions on his talk page as to whether the main title header should be "James" or "Jimmy". The large majority of those who are referenced as "Jim", "Jimmy", "Jimmie" or "Jamie" are, in fact, officially named "James" and their biographical entries confirm this fact. In addition to the ten "Jamies", already listed above, who are really (or started out as) "Jameses" or are also known as "Jameses", here are twenty more: Jamie Allan Brown, Jamie Johnson (filmmaker), Jamie Johnston, Jamie Jones (footballer), Jamie McCrimmon, Jamie McGonnigal, Jamie McMurray, Jamie Madrox, Jamie Murphy (footballer, born 1973), Jamie Murphy (footballer, born 1989), Jamie O'Brien (footballer), Jamie O'Brien (surfer), Jamie Oliver, Jamie Oliver (musician), Jamie Smith (cartoonist), Jamie Smith (footballer, born 1974), Jamie Smith (footballer, born 1980), Jamie Spaniolo, Jamie Stone and Jamie Walker (baseball). There are various other split-offs and inconsistencies, such as Jamey Johnson being listed as a "See also" at the Jamie Johnson disambiguation page, but not even mentioned at the James Johnson page, and so on. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant. The people listed here are Jamies, not Jameses, and there is a link to the James dab on this page, plus a link to the Jamie dab at the James page. You're also ignoring that Jamie is also a girl's name - certianly not short for James there! Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not irrelevant at all, if this has the potential of setting a precedent for all the other James/Jamie dab pages. Unless, of course, we plan on having similar discussions on the specific circumstances of each and every separate James/Jamie page, such as the analogous James/Jamie Patterson and, if there is a female Jamie among them, such an entry would be in the same position as other male/female names such as Dana, Laurie, Joyce or Beverly. Taking into account the thirty Jamies listed above who are Jameses (there are still others), are we going to let those stay with the Jameses on their respective dab pages? As for the matter of putting links to "Jamie" and "James" on their individual pages, such a procedure could be taken further, as GiantSnowman has already pointed out, to create separate dabs for "Jim", "Jimmy", "Jimmie", etc and then add links to all of them at the pages of all the others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If there are multiple people named "Jamie Paterson", then there logically must be a disambiguation page to clarify the different Jamie Patersons. Otherwise, how would one be able distinguish between the different Jamie Patersons? If I am looking for someone named "Jamie", there's a good chance that I won't do a google search to find them by using a different, albeit similar name. I think User:GiantSnowman's main issue is the names of these articles, which he considers should be renamed to "James Paterson". Perhaps he should embark on a crusade to have all of those renamed first. Until then, it is reasonable for Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page for articles that have the same title.--Bogu Slav 02:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boguslavmandzyuk: nope, I don't want to rename the articles at all - no idea where you got that from. I simply think having seperate disambiguation pages for 'Jamie' and 'James' hinders navigation, which is the opposite of what a disambiguation page should do! Giant Snowman 12:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Most of those entries seem to be about the footballers anyway. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to James Paterson, perhaps to a subsection that has Jamies ("Jamie may be a name derived from James" or something like that) listed separately. Too many dab pages can get too confusing. — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close, wrong forum. No one, not even the nominator, is favouring deletion. Even if the contents are merged, we would still want to have a redirect with this title. Let editorial judgement sort this out unhampered by AFD. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2014 (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.