Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Driscoll (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Driscoll (disambiguation)

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

unneeded disambiguation page. There are no articles that link here and a hatnote has been made to bypass it. Tavix (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep add athlete or Hockey. --166.214.185.206 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move Peter Driscoll to something like Peter Driscoll (athlete). JJL (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He is a hockey player so the correct dab is (ice hockey). I'd like to ask why you would keep it, as it isn't useful. Tavix (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Either this page or Peter Driscoll should disambiguate between the author and the athlete. JJL (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In which Peter Driscoll already does that with a hatnote at the top of the article pointing to the author. Tavix (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two valid bluelinks are sufficient for a disambiguation page. JJL's suggestion (but to the more specific Paul Driscoll (ice hockey)) would also work, and may actually work better in the long run. B.Wind (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply No, they aren't sufficient because a hatnote has been made at the top of the article to redirect someone to the correct Paul Driscoll. A disambiguation's only purpose is to redirect the user to the correct article when it is ambiguous. In this case, a hatnote has done the job and therefore the disambiguation has been bypassed. The disambiguation is no longer needed, so it should be deleted. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "No longer needed" doesn't seem to appear in WP:DEL.B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because DABs are not articles. Articles cannot be deleted for that reason, but since DABs are essentually ambiguous redirects, "no longer needed" is logical. Tavix (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. --Edcolins (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply But it isn't useful! There are absolutely no articles that link here. A hatnote does the trick. I don't see what the category has to do with anything, as that category isn't for research purposes but for editing purposes. Tavix (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Two items are generally not enough for a dab page (WP:DAB), especially when one of them has been prodded. A hatnote is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have overlooked this piece of WP:DAB: However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used. It should also be pointed out that at this stage of the Wikipedia game, roughly 5% of the "articles" in article space are dab pages, of which one-third to one-half of them have only two targets each. Furthermore, with the worldwide reach of Wikipedia, what might be considered a primary topic in one country (for example, a British author) might be considered elsewise in another (say, a sports figure in baseball or ice hockey). As far as prodding is considered, two things: 1) there is a discussion going on as to whether dab pages could, and should, be prodded; and 2) once the prod tag is gone from an article or dab page, it's no longer prodded and cannot be in the future. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but move Peter Driscoll to Peter Driscoll (ice hockey), fix incoming links to Peter Driscoll to avoid the redirect and change the resulting redirect page to redirect to this dab page. From WP:DAB: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." In this case, neither Peter Driscoll can be considered to be the primary topic covered by the appellation. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 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.