Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hastie (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. Nominator withdraws, no delete votes. NAC  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

William Hastie (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are only two person by the name "William Hastie", William H. Hastie and William Hastie. One hat-note will suffice. Solomon7968 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There's 3 people: William Hastie, the clergyman; William Heste aka Hastie the architect; and William H. Hastie the judge and civil rights leader. The second was born Hastie and is often known by that name in English-language (and particularly Scottish) sources, but is also known by Heste (a transliteration to Russian and back), so it's entirely appropriate to include him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (To clarify, I added the clergyman to the disambiguation page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC))


 * Keep now that there are three. The lawyer William H. Hastie, son of William H. Hastie, may also be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep useful disambig page that creates no problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment now has 5 entries, but was valid to begin with. Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC) @ I didn't noticed the Heste-Hastie transliteration issue. Now that the dab has 5 entries feel free to close this nomination. Solomon7968 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep valid, 3-entry dab. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think an admin should look at closing this now - result obvious. Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2013 (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.