Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Griffey


 * 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   Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate. Wrong venue - RFD or RM is more appropriate (non-admin closure) ES  &#38;L  11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken Griffey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not quite sure AfD is the right venue here, but RM and RfD aren't quite right either. I propose Ken Griffey, Jr. is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Ken Griffey and that, like with Cal Ripken, the base name should redirect to the more famous Jr. with a hatnote to the Sr. This makes the dab unnecessary per WP:TWODABS, hence I'm asking that it be deleted. Ok, well, really just redirected. Last month, Jr. had [http://stats.grok.se/en/201308/Ken%20Griffey,%20Jr. over 70,000] views, compared to just [http://stats.grok.se/en/201308/Ken%20Griffey,%20Sr. 14,000] for his father. Jr. also dominates results for, as well as those in Google Books. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect I agree with the nominator's argument, particularly given precedent in the article on Cal Ripken. I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as it is with the Ripkens -- Griffey Sr. was a fairly prominent player, whereas Ripken Sr. was a manager -- but Junior is definitely the primary topic in both cases, and the nominator supplies good evidence to support that. So, yes, redirect to Ken Griffey, Jr.. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is the wrong venue for this. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only other formal venue I could think of is RfD, if I did the redirecting myself and then basically asked to have the decision endorsed. I suppose that's one way I could've done it. I just thought this might be controversial (maybe not) and should be discussed. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2013 (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.