Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Shedden


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

George Shedden

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which tells us Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. Cannot be converted into a redirect as there are two other articles that mention a George Shedden; Frederick Shedden and 1926 Birthday Honours. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - I disagree. When creating this page nothing was further from my mind than a listing of every George Shedden, but here we have two people about whom WP already has substantive encyclopaedic biographical content. At least one of them is likely to be individually notable, and could sustain a George Shedden at that name. What is unusual is that, in this case, instead of a Shedden Family-type article, of which there are many in WP, the biographical detail is presented in the context of (but not limited to) the family seat. I had in mind the leading sentences in WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content; and, so far as DAB guidance is concerned, see WP:DABRELATED. The page was created precisely because, looking for information about Sir George Shedden, it had taken quite some time to alight at the right place - access for readers should be straightforward. Revisiting this, I see that I forgot to add a third George of the same family, who should be at least a "see also": George Powell-Shedden. Davidships (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. Such entries are notable for purposes of inclusion in a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:DABMENTION is a guideline, WP:NOT is a policy. Per WP:POLCON, when a guideline and policy conflict, we follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DABMENTION defines notability for the purposes of inclusion within disambiguation entries. There is no conflict. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTDIRECTORY is referring to WP:N when it says just the notable ones; the word "notable" links to that page. DABMENTION also makes no mention of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per MOS:DABMENTION and WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (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.