Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Reed

Simon Reed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Disambiguation pages with no topics do disambiguate. There are no topics on Wikipedia linked here by name, so this page isn't necessary. Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are two "Simon Reed"s mentioned in WP, both plausible searches. Page would be useful to someone searching for a person by this name. I have created redirects. MB 22:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read MOS:DABREDIR; I don't think the use of redirects are appropraite here, so I've reverted your change. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambiguates nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of these men would merit a redirect from their name to the article where they are mentioned. As their names are the same, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 08:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see MOS:DABREDIR. In the case of the ship captain, there's just one sentence about the name including an acknolwedgement that the name might not in fact be "Simon Reed". For the announcer: The Eurosport article contains just a sentence about his firing and no other contribution to the series. The Dancing on Ice article contains only a parenthetical reference. I don't think this person is notable enough to warrant an article in either instance, and therefore doesn't deserve a disambiguation page -- particularly when taking MOS:DABREDIR and the rest of MOS:DAB into consideration. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a third name to the list. If not kept, perhaps a merge to Simon Read is in order. BD2412 T 00:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see MOS:DABREDIR. Non-notable entities don't need entries on DAB pages. Since this page consists only of non-notable entries, it should be deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mikeblas: Please see WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". BD2412 T 19:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412: yep; it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB. The target articles don't even have a full sentence about this name. No additional value is provided to readers because full text search of the encyclopedia will reveal hits in the articles: FTS results. Since this DAB doesn't include any notable subjects and isn't useful to readers, it should be deleted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not so sure that's the meaning of the word "mention". According to our dictionary, "mention" is relevantly defined as a noun as: "A speaking or notice of anything, usually in a brief or cursory manner. Used especially in the phrase make mention of", and as a verb as "To make a short reference to something". I don't see a definition of the word "mention" requiring a "full sentence about this name". I would also defer to the expertise on the subject of... myself, having just crossed the 1.9 million edits threshold, probably half of those being in the area of creating disambiguation pages, fixing disambiguation links, and taking part in the establishment of disambiguation policies and guidelines. BD2412 T 22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Not even sure how to respond to this. I'm trying to assume good faith, but intimidation isn't appropriate here, and the condescention was bad enough. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You have missed the main point, which is the first several sentences of my comment. The dictionary definition of the word "mention" covers the uses that are present on the page. Therefore, these are in fact "mentions", as intended by the guideline, and are sufficient to keep the page. BD2412 T 00:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current version does not have any redirects. A relevant guideline is MOS:DABMENTION:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
A question would be whether the existing entries "provide value to the reader".—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This version of the page should be reverted, as it violates MOS:DABNOENTRY. "Lady Lovibond" is not amibugous with "Simon Read", for example. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Simon Reed mentioned in it is. I have no comment if it provides value per DABMENTION, but your comment is otherwise uninformed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is easy, and I only say that in order not to say "this is insane!" We have a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. (Next up, an article about a comet listed as a biography?) Dear colleagues, the sky is blue. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't often use wp:IAR as a justification - but a disambiguation page that doesn't actually link any pages it's disambiguating is simply annoying if I was searching for Simon Reed. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]