Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Olson (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The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Tavix | Talk  07:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Brett Olson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a disambiguation page for four non-notable Brett Olsons. None of the disambiguated subjects actually has an article, or even a redirect, so I'm not sure what purpose this serves. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominatorT.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 16:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Another bizarre page creation from a now-indeffed editor with a long history of creating hundreds of flawed disambiguation and redirect pages, to get as far up the edit count ladder as possible. Since there's no actual target page involved, It's certainly eligible for a A3 or G8 speedy.   Ravenswing   17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I misunderstood the guidelines for disambiguation pages. This now seems worth keeping to me. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 04:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC) ''==== Items appearing within other articles ====
 * Keep, the entries seem to satisfy WP:DABMENTION Siuenti (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - A user moved the page from Brett Olson (disambiguation) to Brett Olson. To avoid confusion, I changed the name to the latter in the header for this discussion. The page remains nominated for deletion. NorthAmerica1000 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Siuenti says quadruple WP:DABMENTION seems good grounds to keep. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the standard way we handle disam between multiple people mentioned in articles. I cannot think of any other  way to guide people to appropriate content given the limitations of REDIRECT.  DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: helps the reader find which of the 4 they are looking for, valid dab page. Pam  D  15:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep All meet MOS:DABMENTION and are WP:USEFUL. I added two, but actually there are several others which would meet MOS:DABMENTION. There are target pages, they are articles which mention the person rather than a full article on them, but that's still useful to a reader who has typed it in. , your comment indicates a withdrawal of nomination, but unless strikethrough his/her comment, the discussion will probably continue for a while, and I don't think it needs to. What do you think, Ravenswing?Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the subjects come close to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, notability issn't what we're looking at. MOS:DABMENTION's example is of a page very like this:

If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink. For example:


 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=70%


 * Maggie Anderson may also refer to:
 * Maggie Anderson, actress in Corpus Callosum
 * Maggie Anderson, a character in Brigadoon
 * }'' Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 22 December 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.
 * 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.