Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egerton Leigh (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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn, and no outstanding delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egerton Leigh (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The dab page has just two redlinked non-primary topic entries which are adequately listed in Leigh baronets. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, links go nowhere. What's the point of this page? Gm545 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair enough, withdrawing. Gm545 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it just needed clean up One article (primary topic) and 2 entries which meet MOS:DABMENTION. It's a shame it wasn't checked if the 2nd and 3rd baronets met MOS:DABMENTION before it was nominated/commented on. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you didn't bother to read my one sentence nomination, wherein it is acknowledged that they are listed somewhere. However, if you check Egerton Leigh, you'll see that I've replaced the hatnote with a link to the baronets article, making this page entirely superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your hatnote means looking for a while through the Leigh baronets page, and doesn't even make it clear if one, two or ten of this name can be found in the article. The dab links directly to the correct section, makes it much easier to find info and makes it far less likely that someone could confuse the 1st and 2nd Baronets. Even if the hatnote was improved, this is still a dab with tree entries which are all valid. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. The changes are better than my solution. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 2 January 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.