Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edelman (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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Edelman (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/John Edelman (disambiguation). Pinging those who participated there, i.e. Exemplo347 and Meters. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No need for a disambiguation as the two articles are adequately differentiated by their titles. (John Edelman and John G. Edelman). A hatnote at the top of John Edelman would be sufficient in the event that John G. Edelman survives its AFD. Meters (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC) --- text copied from my post at MFD.[reply]
Delete (as original nominator) - Wikipedia does not have disambiguation pages when there are only two targets. Can I just say sorry for my original mistake with the venue for this discussion - thanks @Godsy: for cleaning up my mess! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia regularly has disambiguation pages with only two entries – when none of them is a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary. PamD 09:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Edelman looks to be leaning towards deletion, so this dab should be deleted if that happens (which is likely). However, we also have John H. Edelmann (two N's), which could be considered a third entry in the interim. If John G. is deleted, all we would need is mutual hatnotes at John Edelman and John H. Edelmann (because John Edelmann redirects there). -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The aforementioned AfD was snowing, so I took care of it. Now it's for sure safe to delete this disambiguation page and institute mutual hatnotes instead. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been following this for a while, and seeing how suspicious and likely COI it is, I have no other choice but to cast suspicion on the editor, also, this is an unnecessary page that can be substituted with hatnotes. GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 14:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hat note is a far more appropriate solution given that the titles are suitably different. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've added hat notes to articles that may be affected by the deletion of this Disambig. page. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My views are similar to those above. No need for this dab. Lourdes 08:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.