Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Stokes (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The result was withdrawn by nominator. I'm going to have to withdraw this deletion, as the disambiguation appears to be valid now. However, I have some problems with

Talk 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Willie Stokes (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded - "Willie the Wimp" simply redirects to Willie Stokes and the Bad Santa character is noted there already.

Talk 00:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 00:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Willie Stokes, Jr. is arguably notable enough to warrant his own article. ~~Disambiguation pages are cheep and should not be deleted arbitrarily.~~ A very simple edit could have added {{
John Cline (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John, what are you smoking? William Hokes was executed in 1931, and he wasn't one of the Scottsboro Boys. Willie McGee was executed in 1951, not 1961. (The title of the book you linked to is The Eyes of Willie McGee.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book title is The Eyes of Willie McGee, the linked content however, describes the Willie Stokes executed in 1961; The Willie Stokes executed in 1931 was related to the 9 Scottsboro boys because he preceded their death and they were forced to listen to his execution. Let me get back to smoking now. :)
John Cline (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The 1931 Willie was named Hokes. As for the 1961 Willie Stokes, he was a run-of-the-mill murderer who doesn't merit an article.[5] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are now enough legitimate entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meets speedy deletion criteria {{
db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep 3 valid entries, plus valid see also. I've tidied it so that's clearer. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new "valid" entry links to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a new entry, it was there before. And it links to a subsection of Willie Stoke's article, which is about his son, also named Willie Stoke - so clearly the son meets
MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Added link to
John Cline (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Question Why did the nominator, and supporters, propose deletion and not propose merge to William Stokes dab? It feels to me like this wasn't looked into enough. Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because nobody on this page is notable. The actual Willie Stokes could be mentioned there, but other than that it's unnecessary.
  Talk 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - MOS:DABMENTION is what you shoulfd be looking at. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - There is no section dedicated to Willie Stokes, Jr. (contrary to what you stated above, it is just about his funeral) in the Willie Stokes article, Willie Stokes the caddie seems to be more known as Pappy from the sources given, and the Bad Santa character was previously noted. As such, this disambiguation page is probably not needed.
      Talk 23:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      John Cline (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      
      "The second entry is incorrect because the article that it refers to, the British Soap Awards, does not mention that it is abbreviated "BSA," and therefore is unlikely to be searched for by that letter combination." So yes, it generally is supported that a subject should have at least some sort of a resembling name that he would be searched for. Seeing as how the sources provided state he went by Pappy, it isn't too far fetched to assume most people would search for him anyway. (I doubt anyone was searching for him anyway, to be honest)
      Talk 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Huh? That doesn't make any sense. The article does state that he was known as "Willie Stokes", I don't see how the snippet of guideline you quote has any relevance. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry if I sounded confusing there. Anyway, this guy was known as Pappy Stokes and inducted into the Hall of Fame that way, so people are probably going to search for him by his nickname. I think I misunderstood it. Sorry! I'll be leaving this open, however.
      Talk 01:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Stokes was inducted as Willie "Pappy" Stokes[6] and this is how he is listed on the disambiguation page as well. Parenthetical nicknames are not used in article titles so any article on this subject would usurp the redirect and be titled
      John Cline (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate. Disambiguation is required for WP articles—not for every conceivable facet of a topic. Miniapolis 17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
John Cline (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I haven't let any moss grow under my feet waiting.
John Cline (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Is Willie Stokes the caddie even notable? I don't really see how he is.
Talk 18:39, 25 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.