Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Curran (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Curran (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Page not needed. PatGallacher (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 valid entries, all with article or meeting MOS:DABRL. Clearly meets guidelines. If you disagree with the guidelines, that's a different issue for a different page. Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no explanation for why it's not needed, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's useful, and WP:USEFUL says that "usefulness is a valid argument" for keeping disambiguation pages. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have looked at the guidelines referred to and they do not provide reasons for opposing deletion. The reason for deletion is that the article about the poet was deleted on grounds of insufficient notability. The guidelines on dab pages does say that we should not have red links to articles which are unlikely to be created or would be judged non-notable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply the section you are referring to is about whether the redlink itself should be on the dab, i.e. Margaret Curran (poet), see 1883 in poetry, or Margaret Curran (poet)<!-unlinked->, see 1883 in poetry. In this case, as there are sveral incoming links to Margaret Curran (poet), I think it would be unhelpful to remove the link, and would reduce the amount of information accessible to the user on the dab.

MOS:DABMENTION is clear: 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. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Potentially useful enough. Why not just write an article on the poet? bd2412 T 16:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the previously PROD-deleted version of the article and touched it up a bit. bd2412 T 17:28, 6 October 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.