Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Thorpe


 * 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    rearrange.  I'm stepping outside my normal authority as closer here to impose the normal Wikipedia solution to this kind of issue. The disambiguation page will be moved to Tony Thorpe (disambiguation), and the main article will be moved to Tony Thorpe. There is not a consensus to delete the disambig page here, but it seems there is agreement that one particular use is the main one. Mango juice talk 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony Thorpe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log) Disambiguation page which points only to one article.  This page should be deleted and Tony Thorpe (footballer) moved to this namespace.  Of the others, the first one named is not notable outside of his work in The Moody Boys, who already have an article, and the other seems completely non-notable, being a member of a MySpace/CDBaby band.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Tony Thorpe (footballer) and put a redirect3 at the top of that page pointing to The Moody Boys... maybe. I don't see any point in moving the footballer to the generic name when we already have the possibility of other article subjects with this name. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disambig page is still useful, even if it doesn't link to articles with that specific name. Eg. The Moody Boys musician is notable, but only in the context of the band, so it makes sense for him to not have a separate article. Deleting would penalise the good editors (and articles) that have resisted the urge to make superfluous pages.Yobmod (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (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.