Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Mason

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. → Call me Hahc21 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Mason[edit]

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

Dab page with all redlink entries. Speedy declined for no reason, and apparently dabs can't be prodded. None of the Rodney Masons has a page, so having a dab page point them to nowhere is stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator obviously doesn't understand deletion guidelines with respect to disambiguation. A redlink entry with regards to disambiguation is an entry that has only a redlink. These each have a blue link, and in at least some cases, the entries are valid per WP:DABMENTION. And the nominator further appears to have little regard for civility with edit summaries like this. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that a dab page can consist entirely of "mentions", though. What's the point in this, if none of the Rodney Masons has an article? It's horribly misleading. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree no where does it say that a dab page can consist of only mentions, but also no where does it say a dab page can't consist of only mentions. It is helpful to someone looking up Rodney Mason to direct them to an article that tells them something about the person. GB fan 01:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or it can confuse the heck out of them when they see nothing but redlinks on a dab page and don't expect the blue links to have the info they need. Common sense, people! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems like this would be more suitable for a proposed move if we can agree this dab is still useful. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION, and are helpful to the reader. The page contains bluelinks with info on these Rodney Masons. Meets guidelines, WP:USEFUL and nothing to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful to have the various people disentangled, and offers links to the articles where they are mentioned. If there was one "Rodney Mason" who already had an article, no-one would reasonably object to these people being listed on the dab page. It's illogical to suggest that they shouldn't be made findable just because there isn't that one article. What would "confuse the heck" out of people is if they find no article and no dab page at "Rodney Mason", so no access to the mentions of these people. Nothing to be gained by deletion. PamD 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rodney Mason (rugby league) was recently deleted and can feasibly be removed for that reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it still meets MOS:DABMENTION / MOS:DABRL. Whether they are notable enough for their own article is irrelevant as to whether they are a valid dab entry. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, by your logic… My last name is Peacock, so I can legitimately put it on Peacock (surname) even though I'm clearly not notable enough for an article. I think I'll do that right now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ten-pound hammer, you're being rather rude and confrontational on this. You've also misled on several people's comments, e.g. the speedy was not declined with no reason. I included links to the criteria, so you can see clearly that people cannot just add their name to a dab/surname page. If you disagree with the criteria, that's a different discussion for a different place. Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per MOS:DABRL and comments of several disambiguatistos above. --do ncr am 01:01, 26 March 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.