Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Mills (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 Delete. There is a note at the top of Heather Mills which directs people to Heather Mills (journalist), if thats what they are looking for. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills (disambiguation)

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

This article is unnecessary, as we only have 2 people of this name. The primary article for Heather Mills has a "see also" referring to the journalist. Nothing links to this page. If we ever get a third Heather Mills we can re-create this page easily enough. PatGallacher (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, please. The reason Pat created the article on Heather Mills (journalist) was in order to place it at the top of the article about Heather Mills.  The reason for this is that Heather Mills was once accused of having pretended to be the journalist Heather, so it's one of the incidents that's being used as evidence that she is less than candid about her past. To place a link to the article about that person right at the top of the page is provocative and arguably a BLP violation, because it looks snide, especially when you look at Heather Mills (journalist) and realize that it has almost no content. For that reason, I created the dab page so that the dab link could go at the top of the article instead.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? I don't know how SmimVirgin claims telepathic knowledge of what my reasons were for creating the Heather Mills (journalist) article.  The approach I adopted was, as far as I am aware, perfectly normal Wikipedia practice for this situation where we have 2 people of the same name, one of who is clearly the better known.  I recognise that the article on the journalist could do with being expanded but that's irrelevant to the issues here. PatGallacher (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you had other reasons for creating it, but that's what it looks like. You created the page with almost no content (referring only to the issue with the other Heather Mills), then you went to Heather Mills and posted the link to your article write at the top of the page, reverting when I removed it. And now you want the dab page to be deleted, presumably so that it can't replace your link. We have to be very careful with BLPs. If you didn't intend things this way, then I do apologize, but all I can say is that it looks snide, and I think will look that way to our readers. Some of them might think it's a laugh, but it's the kind of thing that doesn't make us look all that good. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it looks snide that is unfortunate, but that is a very subjective point, and I don't think it would look that way to most people. All I was doing here was aiming for legitimate expansion of Wikipedia following normal guidelines. PatGallacher (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP:Hatnotes go at the top of articles; there's no ulterior motive for placing them there. Until there are more Heather Mills, there's no need for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it's unecessary for only two entries. I have no idea why this arrived at afd. It should have been dealt as a normal editing process. The maunal of style is clear about the proper way. -- neon white user page talk 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure I'd have bothered, but it's clearly redundant. In the case where two people are not significantly better known than each other, a First Last disambig to First Last (job1) and First Last (job2) may be preferred, so having three articles is not unprecedented, but when one is known internationally and the other is not, as is now the case here, a single hatnote is the better way to handle it. A hatnote using otherpeople or variant is NPOV; I don't see how its presence alone can be interpreted as "snide".--Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, unnecessary dab page. PeterSymonds |  talk  07:34, 24 March 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.