Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wingfield (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The result was   Nomination Withdrawn, there being no editors recommending that the article be deleted. Discussion on the forms and merits of disambiguation pages in general should have a look at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for a starting point. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

John Wingfield (disambiguation)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete MOS:DAB recommends in cases where there is a primary and only two entries that disambiguation is served via a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page. In this case, there is only one entry whose name was 'John Wingfield' and his article has hatnote to anyone who mistakenly types in John Wingfield looking for the similarly named John de Wingfield.

Was nominated for deletion via {db-disambig} and prod, rem by BrownHaired Girl, reason given: Dab page may have potential for expansion. This may be true, but as this is a navigational tool to find articles on WP, rather than an article itself, I think we must judge it, per MOS:DAB guidelines, on how it is at the moment, and at the moment it serves no purpose at all. If future articles are created are other men of this name, then it will take two seconds to recreate a dab. Boleyn3 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) This editor appears to be on a mission to delete dab pages, but is not doing sufficient checks. In this case, for example, there is anothjer John Wingfield linked from 1972 European Formula Two season; it appears that this person may be notable. This sort of thing frequently happens with human names, which are mostly ambiguous, and dab pages shou;d be expanded not deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. Dab page does no harm, and serves the useful maintenance purpose of generating an entry in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Dab pages may also need to be expanded in the future, and no useful purpose is served by deleting them.
 * Delete per nom. One-and-a-half element "dab page" - the two articles linked don't even have the same title.  Per WP:DAB, three entries are the recommended minimum for a full dab page rather than using hatnotes. Tevildo (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination is now a useful page. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We now have five entries - the page is good. Tevildo (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I am delighted that this nomination has been withdrawn, I believe that it is yet another illustration of the disruptive effects of 's rapid-fire deletion of dab pages.  In the last few days, I have encountered several such pages whose ddeletion at Boleyn's request has caused a mess which needs to be undone. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does anyone else find the new standard format for disambiguation pages both confusing and ugly? The first line doesn't have a bullet and is in bold so that it stands out. To me it is forcing the reader to see one entry as the correct entry. It also is visually cluttered, the eye is drawn to the first entry because it is both in bold and is unbulleted. Why does one entry have to be given prederence over the other. I am assuming it is because it has the same name as the disambiguation page, but no one goes to a disambiguation page directly, they come from the page called "John Smith" to get to the page called "John Smith (disambiguation)" if the person wasn't who they were looking for. So why is "John Smith" in bold and unbulleted? Anyone know where this is discussed to try and change it? Anyone else find it ugly and confusing? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2009 (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.