Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William John Sweeney


 * 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   redirect to William Sweeney. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

William John Sweeney

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

Delete Although both of them have this name, neither of them seem to have been known as 'William John Sweeney' and it is thus highly unlikely that someone would type this in looking for either entry. We also do not encourage people to set up dabs of those who share more than a personal name, as it could get completely out of hand - every William Alan Smith, every William A. Smith, every William Smith (musician) etc. and we would be inundated with dabs which pretty much duplicate each other. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Comment Is the suggestion to redirect to the composer because there's a mention of him as such? I Googled the full name and couldn't find any non-WP mentions of 'William John Sweeney'. Boleyn (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to William Sweeney (composer). This disambiguation page is superfluous to William Sweeney. Splitting them up by middle name in this case isn't helpful to navigation. • Anakin (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a disambig page, I'm fine with it. If it can help make Wikipedia more clear and easier to navigate, I got no problems.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's a perfectly good dab page - William Sweeney. Who needs a second one with only two items, both of which are already on the other dab page? Redirect to William Sweeney. No need for two dab pages, especially when neither William John Sweeney article has "John" in the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested it only because he was called that at the top of the article about him so I assumed he might be commonly called that. But if there are no other references to him like that, and since this DAB page isn't linked to from anywhere in article space except for the redirect William John Sweeney (disambiguation), then it seems like the page isn't at all useful, so I'd happily support a simple delete and no redirect. • Anakin (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think deletion is the best option, although there are valid arguments for a redirect to either one or the William Sweeney dab (although it's very unlikely that it would be useful and it could cause confusion). Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Change my vote to redirect to William Sweeney as this seems to be the majority, although, as stated before, I'm happy if the final decision is to delete or to redirect to the WS dab. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to William Sweeney. I'm a fan of keeping redirects to disambiguation pages, rather than just deleting them, especially when it will prevent someone from re-creating a deleted page in the future. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 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.