Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord North (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 no consensus. No agreement on whether this makes things easier or harder for readers, or whether this is in fact a duplication of material on other pages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Lord North (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:2DABS, unnecessary disambiguation page. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it is unnecessary? -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply because readers can easily click on Baron North through the hatnote at Frederick North, Lord North, and find any other person titled Lord North.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Baron North is not a dab page, and just because there is an alternative method to get to a destination that is no reason to delete a dab page. You are making the assumption that the average reader knows that barons English are referred to as Lord. This is only something that people with more than a passing knowledge of English nobility are likely to know. Hence it is better to place the dab page as a hatnote for Lord North rather than an article called Baron North-- PBS (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:MULTIDABS is clear. So was the hatnote, which stated clearly: The above is plain English and is coherently concise and clear, only a fool would misinterpret. All of the entries at your disambiguation page are included on Baron North. There is no real need for this dab, at all. It merely duplicates the entries included at Baron North.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per PBS. No benefit to the reader if we delete this; potential use (easier, quicker to find the right person) if this is retained. Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So, I guess we should create Lord Liverpool (disambiguation) and Lord Palmerston (disambiguation) as well, then? Such logic makes scant sense.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment with ref to my comment 00:47, 91 Feb. I have reverted this edit @ 3:00, 18 February 2017 which removed the dab page under discussion from the primary topic page (Frederick North, Lord North) and simultaneously made the hat note more complicated than it needed to be. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it more complicated? I based it off the hatnotes at Lord Liverpool and Lord Palmerston. What an odd assertion.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a courtesy title and a substantive tile of Baron. Also the list of for example Earls does not equate to a list of the Lords Liverpool (as the eldest son who inherits the title may be know as a viscount". It may be younger son who uses the courtesy title of Lord Liverpool. So I do not see how other stuff is relevant here. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff"? Surely you realise that Liverpool and Palmerston were his successors as Prime Minister (hence the possible need for consistency)?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a redundant semi-copy of Baron North. The hatnote is sufficient and Baron North is more complete. (There is a Lord North Street that needs to be worked in there somehow, though.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Baron article is not "more complete" as the other in that list are in red. The dab page list can be expanded as more redlinks are filled in. -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why that page? -- PBS (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of coure it's more complete. It includes every entry on this page and more. If anything, this page is incomplete because it doesn't include the redlinked Lord Norths on that page. Redlinks, FYI, are not excluded from dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant per Clarityfiend. The hatnote at Frederick North, Lord North should be repurposed to point to Baron North. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Query. Is it not a case of WP:BIAS that Lord North currently redirects to the Lord North who happened to be Prime Minister during the American Revolution? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It'd be a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't need a page that would double editors' maintenance load because it's essentially a duplicate of another. — Gorthian (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether or not it is "necessary", ease of use for the reader is what matters.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Because it is useful, and making user-friendly should be a prioirty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment the keep arguments made are extremely weak. Empty language such as "ease of use", "useful" or "user-friendly" are not rooted in any particular policy. Per WP:2DAB, the page is redundant. Per WP:MAF, the page is a potential copyright violation. I struggle to understand why one should keep a page that is only linked by one article, an article whose hatnote once made it perfectly clear that for "other holders of the title" one should click ahead to Baron North, and find their way through. We must be taking our readers for fools, if we honestly think that half-duplicating pages for the sole purpose of making it "quicker to find the right person" is necessary (for those with a smaller monitor, why not scroll down?).--Nev&eacute;–selbert 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't believe 2DABS applies, as there are about 8 people known as 'Lord North'. Many of the arguments boil down to that and WP:USEFUL. Disambiguation pages are there to make it easier and quicker to navigate and this does so. However, a redirect to Baron North would give pretty much the same page. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  19:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. All the men on the DAB page would have been known during their lifetimes as "Lord North". If a reader (emphasis added) comes across a contemporary historical reference to "Lord North", they need an easy way of finding out which one was meant. That's what DAB pages are for.
 * Example: the DNB article on Edward North, 1st Baron North (c. 1496 – 1564) (see WikiSource) calls him "Lord North". Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's hardly a valid keep argument by any stretch of the imagination. The peer you mention is included at Baron North.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment please cite WP:POLICY rather than restating your personal opinion yet another time. In WP:AFD debates, I state my case in full at the outset, and only make further comments strictly in reply. Narky Blert (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cited WP:2DABS over and over. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge policy is up to you, I am afraid.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because of redundancy with Baron North. The maintenance of two nearly identical pages doubles the work load and makes it much more likely that an editor updating one page will overlook the other, leading to potential confusion for readers., a reader's search for Lord North would bring them to Frederick North, Lord North, where a hatnote indicates where to look for others called that. Update the hatnote to point to Baron North, and problem solved! — Gorthian (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it was accidental, but you've already !voted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops. At least I'm consistent! Thanks for the alert. — Gorthian (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge (i.e. delete and leave redirect). There is wp:overlap: everything in Lord North (disambiguation) is also in Baron North. Amend hatnote at Frederick North, Lord North per Gorthian. Can't cite 2Dabs because there's more than 2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk)
 * Just Redirect to Earl of Guilford. The most likely search for Lord North is for the Prime Minister.  The article on him may need an "other persons" hatnote, redirecting to my target.  We have substantive articles on every British peerage and do not need these supplicated as dabpages.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The prime minister (and primary topic for "Lord North") is Frederick North, Lord North, one of many people called Earl of Guilford. The latter article is about the title not one person. Frederick North, Lord North already has a hatnote with the function you refer to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and repurpose hatnote on the PM's article to Baron North. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as effective copy of Baron North. Agree with other commenters regarding hatnote. Jaxyking (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The entire list is on the Baron North page. A hatnote, as others have already suggested, will suffice.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of Lord North Street and its use as a title by numerous notable holders is enough reason for the DAB page. If the consensus is that the content is duplicative of the section in Baron North, it should be redirected to that section per that argument. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord North Street would be a partial title match. That being said however, I've added a See also section at Baron North, linking to said street.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 07:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PTM only forbids PTMs that don't have an affinity for the DAB page, such as the example they give, listing the Louisville Zoo at the Zoo DAB page. From WP:PTM: the Mississippi River article...is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". and Place names are often divided between a specific and generic part...it is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title.... Streets and other road features are commonly referred to without the street/road/avenue/square/plaza bit, and given that "Lord North" is essentially a unique and highly specific name, PTM wouldn't disallow its inclusion here. This follows how DAB pages actually work in these cases (e.g. the square at Trafalgar (disambiguation), the numerous British entries at Downing, the cape at Good Hope, the famous avenue at Pennsylvania (disambiguation). Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 18 March 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.