Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Cocks


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Cocks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested by creator; this is an unnecessary disambiguation page. It lists a non-notable musician and a non-notable footballer; neither are seen as appropriate for future creation, and the footballer is definitely not. It also lists a "see also" but this page could easily be a redirect to that "see also." GiantSnowman 17:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (from creator) The musician is a founding member of a notable band and the footballer is a professional sportsman - I see nothing to support the assertion that they are non-notable. However, you don't need to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines to be a valid dab entry, you need to meet MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL. Both the musician and the footballer meet these guidelines. There is also a very valid see also. It also clearly meets WP:USEFUL. I don't see what could be gained from deleting this page, but I can see clearly what can be gained from keeping it - someone looking up the musician, footballer or those of a similar name can find an article which has information on them. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The musician (assuming he's real and I'd like to see some reliable evidence that there was a Matthew Cocks in the band because he wasn't part of the classic line-up) isn't independently notable as he doesn't seem to have done anything other than briefly play in a notable band; the footballer is real but isn't notable because as far as I can see he's never played in a fully professional league or for his country or done anything else to meet WP:NFOOTY. It could redirect to Josef K if he really played for them. I don't see how the footballer meets WP:DABMENTION or WP:DABRL. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Again, whether they meet WP:NOTABILITY as individuals isn't relevant to whether they have dab entries. Footballer clear ly meets MOS:DABMENTION, quote: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. To see how he meets MOS:DABRL, click on the link Matthew Cocks (footballer) and it will show if any articles contain that red link - footballer's does. Again, the arguments aren't being made based on guidelines for disambiguation pages, but on guidelines for articles. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a Matthew Cocks in the squad list (also one in Żurrieq F.C., but possibly the same person), but a name in a list is not enough to be a topic. There's no reliable source to verify that there was a Matthew Cocks in Josef K (band) - the only thing I could find was http://www.kinemagigz.com/%27j%27.htm, in a section written after the name was added to the Wikipedia article; according to that maybe he was in an earlier band with some of the same members. Peter&#160;James (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the information should be removed from the article Josef K (band). (First, before deleting the disambiguation of the Wikipedia ambiguity.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Ambiguity exists on Wikipedia (assuming the bassist isn't playing football), neither of the topics for the ambiguous title are primary, a disambiguation page is needed. QED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The name "Matthew Cocks" is in the squad for two different teams, and although it's possible that he transferred to Żurrieq F.C. the information available online isn't enough to confirm whether they are the same person. Whether names of players should redirect to club articles was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 66 and the same should apply to disambiguation page entries. Peter&#160;James (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which means what? Does you think that discussion supports deleting or keeping this disambiguation page, or deleting or keeping those disambiguation page entries? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DABMENTION. If these Cockses shouldn't be mentioned in the articles linked then the thing to do is to gain consensus for their removal on the respective talk pages. Only if their removal is agreed should we consider deleting the disambiguation page, which directs readers to the page(s) that they may be looking for. Notability is irrelevant to a disambiguation page, just as it is for a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the footballer is 1000% non-notable and will never have a Wikipedia article. At most, we should redirect this page to the band. GiantSnowman 08:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is no requirement for a subject to be individually notable to be listed in a disambiguation page, per WP:DABMENTION. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Cocks still plays for any football team - he's not listed on their squad at Soccerway - so why does he merit a mention on a disambiguation? GiantSnowman 10:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If he merits a mention in an article then he merits a mention on a disambiguation page. The place to discuss whether he merits a mention in the article is the article talk page, not an AfD discussion for the disambiguation page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't merit a mention on the article in question, so I have been bold and removed the section as unreferenced and out-dated. GiantSnowman 10:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment As the footballer has, rightly or wrongly, been removed from the club's article, I've changed the disambiguation link to another club Matthew Cocks (footballer) is redlinked in. The suggestion that this page be redirected to the band ignores the fact that 'Mattherw Cocks' and 'Matthew Cox' are pronounced almost the same, which can cause ambiguity. Redirecting to the band's article would confuse many people looking for the footballer or someone with the very similar name Matthew Cox. As it stands, it doesn't confuse anyone. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He doesn't play for them either - and so I've also removed him from that list. You're also wanting to keep a disambiguation page when hatnotes could and should suffice. GiantSnowman 17:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found 2 references and added them. I think hatnotes in this case would cause confusion; do you mean a redirect to the band's article with a {For|those of a similar name|Matthew Cox (disambiguation)}? Most looking at the article would be confused by this, as Matthew Cocks wouldn't have been what the majority of people would have typed. Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest using redirect. GiantSnowman 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as I look at it now, it doesn't link to any page called Matthew Cocks. Thus, this disambig page is pointless. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for the targets of a disambiguation page to have the same title, per WP:DABMENTION. If these people didn't share a name we would have redirects for them, but the job of these redirects has to be done by a disambifuation page when there is ambiguity. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that the footballer is never going to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL, from above, rendering this disambig page pointless. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is no requirement for entries in disambiguation pages to be individually notable, but merely to be mentioned in an article. You seem to be reluctunt to actually read the guideline that I linked, so I'll quote from it here: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The MOS:DABRL stipulation "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written" takes precedence. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The guideline is at MOS:DABMENTION, as well as WP:USEFUL. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase this. The guidelines discourage creating a dab page for two entries even if they have standalone articles. Yet we're supposed to keep a weaker example whose entries have no prospect of getting their own articles? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per common sense a nonsensical disambiguation page that contains no one notable. Bruddersohn (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the dab guideline. Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal.  It seems to me that this page is far better than any alternative, such as a non-existent article, a redirect to Matthew Cox, or a redirect to the band.  Why you wish to remove a cheap page that actually discourages re-creation, I can't imagine.    Th e S te ve   10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Benefits: it will help a reader or editor who wants to find something about either of these, or another, Brian Cocks; Disbenefits: ummm, can't see any. What's the point of suggesting deletion? Pam  D  15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there were two valid targets here I would say Keep, but there seem to be no reliable sources that confirm that Matthew Cocks was ever a member of Josef K, so that one needs to go. For the footballer, I don't see a link to a team as a good target. --Michig (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You might not see a link to the team article as a good target, but the guidelines do, and they are the result of consensus. Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention there of players pointing to a club of which they were a squad member - it's a weaker case I think than other individuals who are part of a notable collective. I have removed mention of the other Matthew Cocks from the Josef K article, by the way, as unsourced and failing WP:V (I have several sources on the band, none of which mention him), so there is now only one target. If anyone feels a redirect to a football club is appropriate I have no objection. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - how can anybody justify a disambiguation page with one, exceedingly non-notable listing?! GiantSnowman 11:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I really don't understand - there are 3 listings. I've restored the mentions, seems to have only been removed to prove a point and delete this. Both have references. Can you answer PamD's point? Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re. the Josef K one, that does not look like a reliable source, and it only states that Cocks was a member of the pre-Josef K band TV Art. --Michig (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirects from squad member to team should be discouraged, because they will frequently need retargeting, deletion and undeletion, and at the level where players are not separately notable it's likely that they will not be maintained properly, sometimes because the information is not available - the footballer was in the squad for two different clubs (if it's the same person), but I couldn't find anything about a transfer, only that references to appearances for Matthew Cocks at one club stopped just before the first mentions of appearances for the other. Peter&#160;James (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2012 (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.