Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watson and Crick

There are already separate articles on James D. Watson and Francis Crick. Each article mentions the partner. Do we really need a little stub that repeats what is already in longer and more detailed articles? Joyous 03:12, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd say it does no harm, and likely serves a disambiguation purpose; someone will link to it. The two names get mentioned in the same sentence quite often.  Watson and Crick are like Rowan and Martin, only not as funny.  Smerdis of Tlön 03:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Deoxyribonucleic acid it to me! - Muesli, the vegetarian jungle boy
 * Merge with DNA and redirect to DNA -- Netoholic 03:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect DNA: Truly, it doesn't do much harm, but a redirect solves it nicely, I think per Netoholic's suggestion, as those searching for the combined term are really looking for DNA. Geogre 03:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect - UtherSRG 03:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As others have said, merge and redirect. --Slowking Man 05:18, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. --ssd 06:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Watson and Crick is the most common way of referring to both these two men and to their Nobel Prize winning work. I suppose just so long as we have something there that enables people to find the relevant articles it's OK, but it seems to me that what is there already is informative, encyclopedic, professional-looking and above all effective. Can I expect Flanders and Swann, Abbott and Costello, Simon and Garfunkel, William and Mary, Romeo and Juliet and all the other famous partnerships of history to now be listed as well? Andrewa 10:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * One is a title, one is a historic perioud (itself marginally useful), and the others are official names of entertainment acts. "Watson and Crick" is just the names of two fellows. Lewis and Clark is a closer equivalent, and that redirects to a nice long article about the expedition (discovery), not a stub describing the obvious. -- Netoholic 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * First appearance of an article of mine in VfD (bound to happen eventually I suppose). Obviously I'd like to keep this in some form. Andrewa is right, it is the most common way of refering to them, sort of like Sacco and Vanzetti. There are, I am sure, tons of people who are familiar with the names Watson and Crick (and would do a search as such) together who would stare blankly if either name were mentioned on its own. I'd be against a simple redirect to DNA, because I get annoyed when I find redirects to articles where the connection isn't clear right away, and one would have to read pretty far down the article to find out why these two names redirect to this molecule. If the specific redirect to DNA works then I wouldn't oppose, but for me it seems those sometimes work and sometimes don't. As it stands now it quickly answers the simple question "Who are Watson and Crick?" and gives other places to go for more information. I'd prefer if it were kept and perhaps expanded slightly.-R. fiend 16:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there is anough information to justify a Discovery of DNA (better title?) article, which Watson and Crick could redirect to. It is a facinating story. -- Netoholic 17:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Redirecting to a section is discouraged as there's no guideline that says you must check for such redirects when editing the target section heading, so they get broken too easily. In any case, DNA currently points to a section in which Watson and Crick are never mentioned as such, the individuals are mentioned but only half way down the fourth long paragraph, so IMO the principle of least astonishment is violated. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. Keep. Perhaps a link to the subsection in DNA should be added? --ssd 05:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I originated William and Mary quite a while back and addressed the issue in talk:William and Mary.  How about a new tag fat redirect (embedding the caution against added further material locally) to formally recognise such cases?  -- Alan Peakall 09:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems reasonable to me.  People will indeed search on this.  Perhaps the article could provide more details about the partnership. -- Stevietheman 13:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect and avoid the controversy over Rosalind Franklin. Rmhermen 13:30, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Here, here! -- Netoholic 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I liked the controversy over Franklin. I thought it was very interesting, especially the resolution. --ssd 00:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Why avoid the controversy? It's important and well-known. Watson has said he can't give a lecture anywhere without being asked about it. Whatever one's opinion it's certainly newsworthy and it would be remiss of Wikipedia to pretend it doesn't exist. -R. fiend 00:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A couple final points here. Netoholic says this article "describes the obvious", but I'd say its only obvious to those who know who Watson and Crick are; someone who comes across the names and knows nothing about them will benefit from this stub. Admittedly there is only one Crick on Wikipedia so an individual search will yield a result there, but until I made a somewhat complex disambiguation page for Watson a few days ago there was no real way of finding him. A redirect to DNA, as I said, will be a bit of a stretch. Redirects should be used more for things which have more similar meanings. This stub allows one to easily find DNA, articles on both indiviuals, and a few othe useful links easily, instead of dumping you right into DNA, where the names Watson or Crick are hardly mentioned. The fact that Watson and Crick are refered together as such so often, and never as "Crick and Watson" for instance, shows how they have entered the lexicon, not as two guys who have a vague connection (such as Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller), but as a duo like Bert and Ernie, who, incidentally, have a page on both of them as well as their individual pages, so there is a precedent here. If someone wants to take Netoholic's suggestion and create a page Discovery of DNA and redirect there that would be a decent compromise, but until such a page is written I'm sticking with my original keep vote. Or keep and expand, as long as there isn't too much unecessary repetition of the exisiting articles on them. -R. fiend 14:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's useful as it stands. BTW, R. fiend's assertion notwithstanding, the two are indeed called "Crick and Watson" pretty often. "Crick and Watson" DNA yields 6000 Google hits ("Watson and Crick" DNA yields 24,000). Let's make Crick and Watson redirect to Watson and Crick. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. In the long run it will probably turn into the perfect location for the story about DNA was discovered. :ChrisG 18:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! It's the joys of Wikipedia that it can be accessed this way. Of coure when someone does they hit their forehead and say 'D'oh' but as was mentioned earlier it's how the duo are frequently referred to. Saga City 12:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)