Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Fish (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.  MBisanz  talk 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Fish (disambiguation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   —Tassedethe (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid dab page with two bluelinks to Wikipedia articles. B.Wind (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the dab page has only two links, hatlinks should be placed on the two articles pointing to each other. A dab page is appropriate when there are three or more articles to disambiguate between. WP:DAB WP:HAT  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like a common enough name that others could be added in the future. Hogvillian (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Two items do not a dab page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Name is common enough to expect expansion in the future. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep People might get confused, so you need a page to make sure they are reading about the right person. Otherwise they might think a famous fashion designer from decades past, got old and became a weatherman. Dream Focus (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the very clear guideline at WP:DAB - "future expansion" is a highly silly reason for maintaining this, given that there's nothing stopping people recreating it once said other notable Michael Fishes actually exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you'd rather spend two edits and server capacity by deleting an entry only to later recreate it, when its existence is not harmful in any possible way? - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Had the prod not been needlessly contested we wouldn't be here. Now that we're here, we might as well do the right thing. Once again, I don't find the argument that it might be used in future when some other notable Michael Fish is born to be an argument which passes the laugh test. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the other 6000 two-line dab pages. B.Wind (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete now. If future expansion warrants a disambiguation page, a disambiguation page can be created when warranted. The hatnote serves to keep readers from getting confused. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a third valid entry, Michael Fish (architect), which is linked in the article Overdale, Montreal. I've just done a quick search for sources, and it appears that this person is also sufficiently notable for his own article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started the article on Michael Fish (architect), so with three entries, I'd suggest a keep for the disambiguation page. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that it has utility. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2009 (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.