Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Lockyer (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. And move to Thomas Lockyer (disambiguation). Sandstein 06:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lockyer (disambiguation)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject Tom Lockyer was recently found to be the primary topic for this name. With only one other notable person of this name, and no real indication there are more on the horizon, the disambiguation page is unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER. Readers can reach the cricketer through a hatnote rather than first needing to click through an unnecessary disambiguation page. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to an admin: I think, uncontroversially, we're all in agreement that this page can just be moved to Thomas Lockyer (or the redirect can be made into that page and this one deleted, whichever is the proper outcome)! While there may not be other Tom's, with other people named Thomas in play there's a good solution here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as discussed at Talk:Tom_Lockyer#Requested_move_18_June_2021 (WP:ONEOTHER). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep based on Boleyn's additions. A combined disambiguation page (WP:DABCOMBINE) for Tom and Thomas seems appropriate for the small number of entries. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is only one person of note with this name, the disambiguation page is superfluous.TH1980 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (per improvements) there were other entries for this, they just needed to be looked for and added. This is a valid dab, meets all the guidelnies. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There still only seem to be two people named Tom Lockyer -- neither of the additions appear to have gone by Tom Lockyer. It does seem that there should be a dab page for Thomas Lockyer -- whether that should be created by moving this page to Thomas or by creating a new one at the redirect you should created seem equally fine to me (but the current status should not remain, given that we now have a dab page at Tom Lockyer where 2/4 entires are not Tom Lockyer's.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording on the intro so it shows it is for those named Tom or Thomas (both Toms do appear to be Thomases, so I agree, a move to Thomas Lockyer as the base name is a good idea, I just didn't want to do that while this was ongoing, but perhaps afterwards).

Which, just to be clear, I would support (not sure if the closing admin can do that, but seems like the easiest, presumably uncontroversial next step).--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Thomas Lockyer (disambiguation) per nominator's suggestion. This would allow for the inclusion of the other Thomas Lockyers that didn't go by "Tom." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2021 (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.