Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Newman

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. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Newman[edit]

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

Disambiguation in which all of the articles that should "disambiguate" doesn't exist. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm surprised there isn't a speedy criterion or something that would keep something obvious like this from clogging up AfD. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The producer has some hefty credits (Children of Men, Dawn of the Dead (2004 film), The Thing (2011 film), Flash of Genius), and he's done some interviews[1][2].The snooker player competed in the qualifying rounds of the 1947 and 1948 World Snooker Championships, so he's marginally notable. Not sure about the head coach of the University of California, San Diego basketball team. Alternatively, the article could be converted into the producer's bio. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point here is that unless the articles for those Eric Newmans are created and meet GNG, we don't need a disambiguation page, since it's useless. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - this falls clearly under MOS:DABRL "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link". Perhaps some day the DAB page may be required, but that time is not now. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep as the page is now a valid DAB.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've just added links to the half dozen high profile films Newman co-produced, and the snooker player was already linked (though just to this page, which I've rectified). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I repeat. For this DP to exist, first the articles which it is supposed to disambiguate must exist. The Dp is useless if it disambiguates to non-existent information. If you found information regarding this Eric Newmans, i suggest you to be bold and create all those articles that it disambiguates. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment Each entry in a DAB page needs to link to an actual article - each entry must have at least one navigable blue link as that is the entire purpose of a dab page. See MOS:DABENTRY "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term". The purpose of a DAB page is to disambiguate common titles of extant Wikipedia articles, it is not intended to be a list of potential articles, that is what the search function is for. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Uh, did you (Hahc21) read Ponyo's comment? Redlinks are allowed. I've added a rapper who has an article, to go with the producer who deserves one (which I may get around to) and the snooker player. Three entries, with related bluelinks, are more than sufficient to support a dab page, regardless of the worthiness of the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And did you carefully read Ponyo's comment? Read again, please. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "navigable (blue) link ... to the most relevant article": check. As for "it is not intended to be a list of potential articles", that is not stated in the link; on the contrary, WP:MOSDABRL specifically covers this situation. Think you're talking to a newb about dab pages? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum. The numismatist looks pretty notable too. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal opinion about this one way or the other — but just to provide a bit of context, the title's original iteration was as a straight redirect to Luka Magnotta. However, there were numerous other articles expecting different Eric Newmans, and for obvious reasons we don't want to mislead people with an incorrect link (the fact that the accidental link was to an alleged necrophiliac serial killer making it even more urgent to stay right on top of this!), so I deleted the redirect as problematic and it was then recreated as the current dab page by the same user who had originally created the redirect. It's true that a dab page shouldn't normally exist where only one bluelink is actually present on the page — but it's also true that if there's more than one bluelink, then it is acceptable for there to be some redlinks too. I'm fine with either keeping this or deleting it, but the one thing that the title absolutely cannot be is a straight redirect to Magnotta. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DABMENTION says "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included.", so the producer, snooker player, etc are all justified, either as redlinks or just as black text with an associated bluelink. PamD 07:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's plausible that someone would search "Eric Newman", looking for either the rapper or the fugitive, both of whom have articles. The redlink to the film producer seems justifiable, the others perhaps less so, but it's clear there is a need to disambiguate between several semi-notable Erics. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. i created this as a redirect to Luka Magnotta, since it is his BIRTH NAME. the redirect was deleted with the following rationale:
18:31, May 31, 2012 Bearcat (talk | contribs) deleted page Eric Newman (bad redirect, causing legitimate redlinks about unrelated people with the same name (including a screenwriter and a baseball player) to link to the alleged murderer.)
. it seems to me that this page needs to exist, even if not in its current form. perhaps a hatnote at the top of Stagga Lee, but i doubt that would go over well with the fans of that artist. -badmachine 08:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to slamdunkify this, I've started Eric P. Newman, which I'll finish tomorrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point here is to "disambiguate". There are several possible "Eric Newman" articles which may qualify as notable.Ryoung122 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 3 people called Eric Newman have articles, and 4 entries clearly meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION. Valid dab. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no question about it. Each dab entry must have a bluelink, and there must be more than one entry worth keeping. Conditions met. We can replace the redlinks with black text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this now snow keep? Especially as big improvements have been made to the page since its nomination. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's safe to assume that. im unwatchlisting this. -badmachine 13:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would have been speedy, but someone voted delete. This disambiguation page serves as a very informative purpose. The birth names are good entries, and the producer... is not that searchable because the name itself may be ambiguous --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. I'll watchlist this as well, given the late unpleasantness - it's easy to overlook how disambiguation pages interface with BLP, but it's an important concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion rationale is no longer valid as the disambig has been improved. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2012 (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.