Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna James (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. JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anna James (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

none of the names listed are notable so why should there be a disamb page for the name? LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep See MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Clearly not true that none are notable - one has article, others meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. It is these guidelines that govern whether they are valid dab entries, not notability. There are 5 valid entries, plus valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: all valid dab page entries, all could help readers to find the Anna James they seek. Pam  D  12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: if only the one has a link then what's the point of having a disambiguation page when none of the other ones do? That's my point. That's all a user is going to click is the disambiguation because none of the other names goes anywhere LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment They do go somewhere! You click on what links here and see what articles mention them. They also have a blue link which takes you to an article mentioning the person. By removing the redlinks, you're removing the opportunity of What links here, removing the easy opportunity for people to create the article, and for the article, when/if created, to automatically be added to dab, and not keeping to MOS:DABRL guidelines. In no way WP:USEFUL to delete this valid dab which meets all guidelines. If you disagree with the guidelines, that's a different discussion for a different place. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:21, 9 April 2014 (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.