Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacGill

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 merge and redirect to

nac) Ish dar ian 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

David MacGill

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

Dab page with only red links, or "see also" for other spellings (declined speedy; attempts to redirect reverted) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to David McGill (disambiguation), fully protect redirect, trout User:Boleyn for reverting this twice back to its own disambig page. There would be nothing wrong whatsoever with listing these two, potentially notable, people in the David McGill page anyway - it's an alternative spelling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 valid entries, both meeting
MOS:DABMENTION; and 2 valid see alsos. I could have understood a merge discussion (although I would have disagreed as this has valid entries in its own right), but not deletion. Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Which articles link to David MacGill? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No articles link to David MacGill, there's not meant to as it's a dab page. But if you click on
MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Those two guidelines are irrelevant. Yes, it's valid to have a disambig page with redlinks. It isn't, however, any good to have one with only redlinks. Put those two redlinks on the David McGill (disambiguation) page, and follow the rest of my previous comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine to have a disambiguation page with only entries that have their blue links in the description (that meet
MOS:DABMENTION). That too disambiguates Wikipedia ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

That was my plan for this evening... Giant Snowman 15:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nathan, why would I? The page meets the guidelines and helps those looking up the 2 David MacGills. Actually whether they turn out to be notable is irrelevant to whether they are valid disambiguation entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep: a dab consisting of only redlinks is useless and there is no point in disambiguating pages that don't exist. As noted above, the two links to the MOS pages are irrelevant. We don't have dab pages for non-existent articles. GiantSnowman has stated they plan to create stubs for the 2 redlinks. If that happens by the end of this AfD, then this dab is useful, and should be kept. I leave it to the closer to decide whether this comment is actually a delete or keep, as I have no plans to revisit this page. -
Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with
WP:IAR if necessary, but in this case there is a less controversial option. PamD 16:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
David MacGill (politician). If these people are at all notable, then it can't possibly be that hard to at least make very short entries on them. bd2412 T 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
MOS:DABMENTION. No preference on whether the content is kept here or merged with the McGill dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep/merge. I'd lean toward merge, since there's an obvious opportunity for confusion between McGill/MacGill. But I want to affirm my agreement with others that the disambiguation page is legitimate. Wikipedia has some information, however minor, to offer to the user who looks up David MacGill the athlete, or David MacGill the politician, and there's no reason not to help those users find that information. That's why we allow redlinks on dabs. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - both stubs now created, and because the Canadian Olympian looks to be a 'McGill' rather than a 'MacGill' I am leaning towards merge. Giant Snowman 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the politician, whom I've just moved to "(lawyer)" as a better epithet, is spelled Makgill in some sources, and his father Mackgill - just to add a bit more colour to this tale! PamD 21:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the entries but merge to
MOS:DABMENTION as irrelevant. Even before the stubs were created, this would still have been a valid disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge because one could easily confuse a MacGill with a McGill, but possibly speedy close since the argument for deletion (that
David MacGill (lawyer) were redlinks) is no longer the case. (And isn't this the wrong venue anyway? AfD is for articles, not disambiguation pages.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Above arguments based on two (redlink)
David MacGill (athlete) to link to David McGill (athlete). Then we see there's only one entry outside of See also. I refrained from making the edit as... Widefox; talk 13:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Done - second ref also supported "McGill" not "MacGill", so I fixed the two articles & DAB. Widefox; talk 13:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
MOS:DABMENTION would have been fine to keep both reds until we found out one is misspelt)Widefox; talk 13:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge - For a single entry on a variant, merging is the best option. The page can easily hold it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2013 (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.