Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Keep  - Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin close. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cohen

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

The disambiguation page Cohen is not in compliance with Disambiguation, in particular: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title ... Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Therefore, all the references from Cha Cha Cohen to Cohen designation have to go. All of the remaining references (now listed under "see also"), which include several spelling variants of the name, the religious concept of Kohen, and the fictional character Cohen the Barbarian, are verbosely included in the article Cohen (surname). So the disambiguation page is completely redundant and should be deleted; afterwards, Cohen (surname) should be moved to Cohen. -- 790 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cohen (surname) ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Delete - On second thoughts, per nom, and then redirect Cohen (surname) to Cohen  – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never understood that guideline about "partial title matches". I've found broad disambiguation pages like this extremely useful when I only have a vague idea what some concept or object is actually called. Plus, many of these things would be buried in Wikipedia's search results. Usability trumps all: keep. Zagalejo^^^ 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of disambiguation pages list persons whose surname is the page title, along with various other senses of the word. If it is proposed to delete all of them, the AfD nomination should make that clear.  If it is proposed to delete only this one, then why only this one? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reading up on the concept of Kohen when I came about the Cohen page, and it struck me that it reverses the usual use of disambiguation main part and "see also" section. Then I read up on en.WP disambiguation page guidelines and found this page in violation, as well as being redundant (as explained). I haven't had the time to look at all disambiguation pages on en.WP, let alone list all for deletion that are not in compliance with guidelines. If you have any further questions about my motives, feel free to express them, but I would like to encourage you to re-read WP:AGF before. -- 790 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Very useful information. If the guidelines for disambiguation pages discourage such lists, remove the disambiguation template and call it an article. The template used to describe in plain English what a "disambiguation page" is: an aid to finding the right article. Cohen does that well. Fg2 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think with this edit the main problem has been taken care of, so I have no further objections against keeping the article. -- 790 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - with the edit referred to by User:790, I change my position. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I don't keep up the request, how to end this? -- 790 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (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.