Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suozzi
- 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 to delete. There is substantial and well-argued support for a redirect, and this may indeed be the correct outcome. I suggest that discussion continues on the talk page about that. What this AfD has found is that this material should not become a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Suozzi[edit]
- Suozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary; has two real entries at most. It had five when I found it (three blue, two red), but I removed one that failed MOS:DABENTRY guidelines and nominated another for deletion.
If the entry for Ralph Suozzi is deleted, there's only one viable link so this page would be clearly unnecessary. If that entry is kept, I think we can get along with a hatnote unless the two other non-notables do something amazing down the line. ~TPW 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
notified WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy since i couldn't otherwise see how to sort.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You've got two notable name-holders, so you cannot have Suozzi redirect to either of them as an {{R from surname}}. The usual approach is then to create a surname list article in the anthroponymy project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's down to one notable name-holder per another deletion discussion. --~TPW 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still seems either a keep (for the two blue links, even though one is now a redirect), or keep & redirect to Thomas Suozzi as an {{R from surname}} -- possibly then with a hatnote for Ralph Suozzi on Thomas's article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a redirect would be excessive; a Google news search for "Suozzi" only yields hits on Tom for many pages. People who want to look for non-notable Ralph know his first name, or will back into it via Glen Cove, New York. In short, a redirect is more than this deserves.--~TPW 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's a guideline for backing up the claim for not "deserving" a redirect. Clearly the surname exists, and clearly there's a notable name holder. A page should exist at the title "Suozzi"; the question is now is it a surname-holder list (Tom + Ralph) or a redirect (Tom). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a redirect would be excessive; a Google news search for "Suozzi" only yields hits on Tom for many pages. People who want to look for non-notable Ralph know his first name, or will back into it via Glen Cove, New York. In short, a redirect is more than this deserves.--~TPW 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still seems either a keep (for the two blue links, even though one is now a redirect), or keep & redirect to Thomas Suozzi as an {{R from surname}} -- possibly then with a hatnote for Ralph Suozzi on Thomas's article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's down to one notable name-holder per another deletion discussion. --~TPW 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Thomas Suozzi. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:47, 12 October 2011 (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.