Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Archer (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to JHunterJ for pointing out what I missed — that there were three keep !votes from the same user. The only reasonable closure as such is delete. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Archer (disambiguation)[edit]
- Lee Archer (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Only 2 dab entries (I've already changed the hatnote in Lee Archer). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Should this have had a PROD first? According to WP:MOSDAB, Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. I would concur with ClarityFiend that this dab is not necessary, but it is harmless and potentially helpful. Lee Archer is also a relatively common name, one which may well have another notable added in the near future and require a dab to be written again. Dabs are cheap, so I think WP:MOSDAB doesn't support deletion of dabs which aren't strictly necessary but are harmless. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Orphan page with no utility/helpfulness. (Yes, it could have been (successfully) prodded.) Many deleted pages were cheap and harmless. When future WP articles on other Lee Archers are created, the dab page could then be created too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a concern that it's an orphan page, dabs aren't meant to be linked to; this was linked to until when this was nominated, which has now been changed. If dabs are not allowed to have only 2 entries, then WP:MOSDAB would need to be altered to make that the case. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an unneeded disambiguation as the Lee Archer page already has a hatnote to the pilot, which makes the disambiguation orphaned. The disambiguation provides an extra step that someone looking for the pilot would have to go though if he/she searched "Lee Archer". The hatnote works perfectly fine as well so I see no reason to keep the disambig. Tavix (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand your points, but WP:MOSDAB clearly does not support deletion if a dab has 2 entries, including one with the main page (e.g. Lee Archer). Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOSDAB is clearly neutral on deletes of dabs with 2 entries, one of which is primary. They are harmless, yes, but they are also useless. So if an editor feels the need to nominate for deletion, they can be deleted without creating a navigational problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone has added a third entry to the dab. However, I think it's important that the position on dabs such as this was is made clear. My interpretation of WP:MOSDAB is that they do not warrant deletion. If this is incorrect, then it would be best for WP:MOSDAB to be reworded to say these are not permitted. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (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.