Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. J. Pollock


 * 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   redirect to Algernon J. Pollock. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A. J. Pollock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't have a strong opinion about this subject, but if consensus is to delete, please redirect to Algernon J. Pollock, frequently cited as "A.J. Pollock" for his influential early 20th century evangelical writings. Ἀλήθεια 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you're supposed to provide a rationale for deletion; otherwise, it's grounds for a WP:SK. But I'm going to bite on this one and say delete as failing WP:ATHLETE. Status as a "top prospect" for the Arizona Diamondbacks doesn't exactly make him Stephen Strasburg. KuyaBriBri Talk 05:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K., fine. This article is not a candidate for speedy keep.  I nominated not because I was so thoroughly convinced that it should be deleted, but because I questioned whether it was notable enough to keep.  My !vote would be delete.  Truth be told, I'm more interested in the redirect to Algernon J. Pollock.  I probably should have just left this article alone before moving it per WP:NAME, and let it languish in "unfindability", but I wanted to give it a fair shot in AFD. Ἀλήθεια 13:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Move and replace with disambiguation page - regarding your rationale for listing in AfD specifically. I'm not commenting on whether or not the article should be kept. Ivanvector (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Just a comment. Why do we need a disambiguation page with only two articles?  The nominated article has "This article is about the baseball player. For the Plymouth Brethren evangelist and writer, see Algernon J. Pollock." at the top.  Place a similar note on the other page and call it a day.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that the convention for a dab page that would only have two entries? I would think the dab page would be more appropriate, so that if someone searched for the topic they would get a list of both articles, instead of Wikipedia assuming that one of the two is the default. Does that give undue credibility to one or the other subject?  I'm asking, I don't know the answer.  Ivanvector (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that more than a week later, no one has come to the defense of the notability of this article as it stands. I am going to change to a redirect. Ἀλήθεια 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As of right now, the article that was nominated for AfD has been replaced with a redirect to the evangelist's page. This probably shouldn't have been done while the AfD is still open, however I don't think any of us that have commented would disagree with this action. Can this AfD be closed properly now? Ivanvector (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.