Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin brothers


 * 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   Delete existing/convert to disambiguation page. Mfield (Oi!) 06:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin brothers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm sure this has been proposed for deletion already. But, come on, look at this article. It would be one thing if they were "The Baldwin Brothers", a singing group or something. But this is just pointless. They are actors and they are brothers. It's not worthy of an article on its own, certainly not this article. Their respective articles can link to each other, but this is utterly pointless. Belasted (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally redundant to the existing articles on all four brothers. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as redundant Tavix : Chat  02:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - While I understand the above arguments, these actors are referred to as the "Baldwin brothers" so much in the news, that first, this is not original research, and second, an article (or at least a placeholder/dabpage) with this title is warranted, in my opinion. Here's a tiny sampling of articles referring to them as the "Baldwin brothers", , , . *Many* more can be had on Gnews. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, haven't the Canadians done it already? I was expecting something of a in-depth family story, so if someone follows User:LinguistAtLarge's advice above and expands it thoroughly, it's fine, but right now there's nothing to salvage. It's a non-article. And no need to listify either. NVO (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - With all due respect, I don't think you've given a compelling reason to delete the article. I think we're here to decide if Wikipedia should have an article on the subject or not.  If the answer to that is yes, but the current text is not up to speed, it should be tagged for improvement, not be deleted, in my opinion. We don't have a deadline. In my opinion, there is something to salvage; this is a start, upon which an encyclopedic article can be written. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article has been here since 2004, and is still less than stub status. But anyway, why do you think it's important to have an article for the Baldwin Brothers, as opposed to just letting them have their own articles that link to each other? They're not like the Coen Brothers, who have done most of their projects together. Belasted (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not bent on having an article on them. As I mentioned above, "an article (or at least a placeholder/dabpage) with this title is warranted".  Due to the notoriety of the term "Baldwin brothers" in reference to two or more of the four brothers, is still think this is true. Perhaps we should have something of a disambiguation page at this title, with links to The Baldwin Brothers and to these four actors.  In my research for this AfD, I also saw a couple of companies that use the moniker "Baldwin brothers", that probably could have an article as well, and could be linked to from said dabpage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, mainly because it's a helpful navigation aid. The title is a very likely search term for people who just want a list of all four brothers, so we should leave the article be, rather than force readers to start with one brother as a jumping off point to the other brothers' articles. After all, it is possible that someone might not know the first names of any of the brothers. I'll also note that the page routinely gets 1,000+ visits a day, so people are definitely using it. Zagalejo^^^ 08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this concept is notable. Will you also nominate Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen and Williams sisters? - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment No, I wouldn't nominate them, because they are more closely linked. Anyway, after reading Zagalejo's comment, I think it may be a good idea to keep it after all. Belasted (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only as a disambiguation page. Sarilox (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove most of the content and turn it into a disambiguation page. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambiguation page per above comments. Belasted (talk) 20:42, 4 April 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.