Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Child (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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
William Child (disambiguation)[edit]
- William Child (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unnecessary disambig page. the other william child, redlinked, is a parliamentarian who served for 2 years in the 1390's, and who wont ever get an article. I searched WP for other william child's, there are none. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, this should be under Miscellany for discussion, or somewhere else. my mistake.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (from creator) Why won't he ever get an article? I see nothing to support the idea that any MP, or any notable person, will never get an article. He now has one. There is nothing at all to be gained by deleting this page, which has two entries and two very easily confused see alsos. Clearly WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found 2 more entries which meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION, and there's actually a few more. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marginal, because everything other than the one is a marginal stub or a "see also" but the page serves a purpose to disambig and navigate between all of that stuff. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Bit marginal, but useful on balance. Certainly pointless to delete it now it's there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The boxer could easily get an article, and there are several weaker but still notable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm ... looks like the boxer is listed as William Childs in Boxing at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Middleweight and William Childs. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed boxer entry, he does seem to be Childs. Regardless, dabs just need at least two entries with an article OR meet MOS:DABRL OR [MOS:DABMENTION]]. It clearly meets, and exceeds, this requirement. Accoding to the disambiguation guidelines, it is unquestionably valid. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in view of the confusion over the boxer, which is perhaps typical of problems with a final "s", might it not be most helpful to merge this one with William Childs (disambiguation)? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say not, possible confusion is dealt with by the see also. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: five valid entries per WP:DABMENTION, per Boleyn Widefox; talk 12:05, 9 November 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.