Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iaconelli


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Iaconelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A disambiguation page with only two links isn't really necessary. The two pages linked also have hatnotes, which should suffice. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This isn't a dab, it's a surname page, and surname pages are actually articles (though they often look a lot like dabs). No benefit to readers in deleting it. A hatnote to an article on someone who shares the surname but is not ambiguous is confusing and doesn't meet WP:HATNOTE., substantial changes have been made to the page - could you please look it over and see if you want to continue with or withdraw nomination? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I guess. It's a service to readers trying to find one of the Iaconellis but can't remember their first name. There's only two, true. And as editor points out, technically its an article in which the etymology etc. of "Iaconellis" could be be added in future. I don't see how it's doing any harm. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of sources to show the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good surname article.— Gorthian (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Surname page, now with four entries. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:APONOTE. A surname with multiple notable people with the name is considered notable for indexing purposes. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:17, 25 February 2017 (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.