Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Meyers (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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brad Meyers (disambiguation)

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

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term. Tassedethe (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   —Tassedethe (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, harmless but useless, so should be deleted if nominated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages, see . --Edcolins (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid justification for keeping. And the statement that a human-name dab page appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages is circular and likewise does not justify keeping. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, for it to be a circular link, it would have to link directly to the page on which the wikilink appears. Usually that occurs when an article is linked to a redirect to that same page. Categories are completely different in this regard. B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The link isn't circular, the argument is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what &uarr;he said&uarr;. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two valid targets are all that's needed for a dab page. If either of the target articles is deleted, the dab page can be converted into a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two valid targets are all that's needed for a base name (no primary topic) disambiguation page, true. That is not the case here. This dab page is an orphan, because there is no need for it.  Readers looking for either article will find the one sought by entering Brad Meyers in the search box or by clicking through the hatnote on the primary topic article Brad Meyers. So, this dab page is useless and harmless and should be deleted since someone took the trouble to identify it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. When there is a third Brad Meyers to add, it can be recreated.  For now, since there are only two articles, reciprocal dablinks between the two are easier for the end user.  Linguist At Large  21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Dab pages are cheap, especially when they already exist. It's more trouble to delete them & convert them to hat notes than to leave them be. We shouldnt deliberately create new ones when there are 2 alternatives, but i see no reason to remove any which are not confusing, or in situations where one of the two is much the more important. DGG (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This one doesn't need to be converted. It's an orphan (useless) dab page; the correct hatnote already exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid justification for keeping. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Two articles looks okay to me. We have lists and categories for the same information, so redundancy is no reason to delete a disambiguation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are neither list articles nor categories. Redundancy is not one of the reasons given for deletion. It is useless, and there is no reason not to delete it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion was given as: "Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines redundant as: exceeding what is necessary or normal : superfluous b: characterized by or containing an excess". If you know how to use Wikipedia, you should know how to use a dictionary and a thesaurus. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. superfluous b: not needed : unnecessary -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as the disambiguation has been bypassed by a hatnote. Since no articles link here, it isn't needed anymore. "It does no harm" is not a valid reason to keep. Tavix (talk) 00:50, 9 January 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.