Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (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   keep. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Melissa Scott (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only one valid target, the previous other target was deleted in part due to BLP violations, and a third article with no links here and no danger of confusion has been added seemingly to keep this alive. The BLP issues with the now-deleted article alone seem to suggest we no longer need this. See also: Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott (pastor) Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe this can be handled by a hatnote instead of a disambiguation page, but a substantial number of people who type in Melissa Scott are still going to be looking for Melissa Scott (pastor), and will need to be redirected to Gene Scott. Page view stats show that Melissa Scott (pastor)  gets many more page views than Melissa Scott (writer): in the last 90 days it was 8718 vs. 1757; in October 2013 it was 2295 vs. 473. I have no opinion about Melissa Scott-Hayward. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Clarified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and hatnote as usual in such cases. What does the number of hits for the pastor's husband have to do with anything? There's only one standalone article about a Melissa Scott. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, those numbers refer to hits for Melissa Scott (pastor) (not Gene Scott). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've added the necessary hatnote to Melissa Scott. On the principle of least astonishment I've linked explicitly to the Gene Scott article rather than use the redirect link which might puzzle readers if they think they're being directed from the hatnote to an article about the pastor herself and find they're on his article instead. Pam  D  14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Disambiguation pages are not just about disambiguating people who have their own articles. This has four valid entries (including see alsos). Nothing to be gained from deletion, potentially WP:USEFUL to readers. As for why do the pageview hits mean anything, it means WP users are looking for information on her, thus we should make it easy for them. Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the "valid entries," one is an article of an author, one is a deleted article, one is a redlinked entry with a hyphenated last name (making searching for her there unlikely), and one is a bluelinked entry with a hyphenated last name (making searching for her there unlikely). The idea that there are four valid entries does not appear to be true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Both see alsos are blue links (articles) and there's every chance a reader would type in 'Melissa Scott' for Melissa Scott-Hayward or Melissa Scott-Miller - we're trying to make it as easy as we can for articles to be found. Both belong in see also section, both valid entries. To say one links to a deleted article is misleading - it leads to an article where information on Melissa Scott (pastor) can be found - clearly meets MOS:DABMENTION (her name is mentioned in the article 12 times). She doesn't meet the guidelines for an individual article but she meets the guidelines for a disambiguation entry. What could possibly be gained by deleting this? Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The artist was a redlink at the time of my comment. I don't agree that these are likely targets for the hyphenated articles, and a proper hatnote is on the writer's page.  That seems to be more than enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The artist's article was not a redlink - check the time and date of creation. It may have been an error with the way it presented on your screen. You're still igonring both MOS:DABMENTION and WP:USEFUL. I haven't seen any arguments for deletion as the article stands, that go beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added a fifth entry which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough people using this name that having a disambiguation page is very helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2014 (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.