Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Tucker


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Tucker
Disambiguation page with all red links. Mikeblas 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any precedent for this? What if some or all of the referenced people are notable? NTK 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If some of the people on this list are notable, they will get their own article at some point. No sense having a disambiguation page listing several people not yet considered notable. Resolute 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - I think we might be able to call this housekeeping (csd g6). Tagged as such. MER-C 08:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It disambiguates between at least two people who have an article. Unless those are deleted, I don't see any reason to deleted a dab page. Redlinks can (I think) be removed according to the WP:MOS. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. When I nominated, there were no working links and all redlinks. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has since added two of the articles. -- Mikeblas 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, nominator's rationale does no longer apply. Punkmorten 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly good dab page. --Ezeu 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. —Mitaphane talk 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Request. Please read before voting; at the time the AfD was opened, there were all redlinks. Deleting all the redlinks per the MOS would have left an empty article. Opening an AfD was the right thing to do. -- Mikeblas 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the only choice, however. Seeing whether one could write a decent stub for one or more of the dangling links was another possible choice. Uncle G 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I might have taken that choice is I had known anything about the inovlved people (or, in a couple of cases, could even figure out which Mark they intended to refer to). Your suggestion, while possible, is impractical. -- Mikeblas 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite practical. "What links here" is your friend. Uncle G 08:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you point is. If you'd try using "WLH" for that article, you'd see that there's nearly no incoming links; the ones that exist aren't relevant. -- Mikeblas 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason that there are no incoming hyperlinks is that editors had already helpfully arranged for all of the different Mark Tuckers elsewhere to hyperlink to individual articles that this article then listed, ready for people to write. In other words, they had already done some of the work of setting up a proper disambiguation, ready for others to then build upon.  You could have used "what links here" for the redlinked articles that it disambiguated.  You still can, in fact.  "What links here", and assuming that editors might have created a disambiguation article as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia in collaborative fashion, are your friends. Uncle G 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need to dab when it can be done at Tucker (surname). Ohconfucius 05:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If each of the articles would, in the absence of all of the others, otherwise have the title "Mark Tucker" or a redirect there, then there is a need to disambiguate. Please refresh your memory of Disambiguation. Uncle G 11:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was not before, but is now a valid Disambiguation. -- Satori Son 17:31, 25 September 2006 (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.