Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDermott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James McDermott

James McDermott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The entry is redundant, since a McDermott disambiguation entry already exists. Users of Wikipedia who are looking for a McDermott without knowing for sure McDermott's first name should be able to also find the James McDermotts in the disambiguation page. If the McDermott entry is already too large, the entry for James McDermott in it could lead to a second disambiguation page, for James McDermotts only. But it's not helpful having two separate entries; we should not presume people always know exactly what they're looking for. The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The situation described (having these listings at a two-name dab page and at the surname dab) is not unusual at all; have a glance at Category:Lists of ambiguous human names. I suppose many of the two-name dabs could be redirected to the surname dab, but that would be a major change in how we have handled these pages and I am not convinced that there is any strong advantage to changing the precedent. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Paul Erik. Disambigs are cheap and there's absolutely no reason to get rid of this. The McDermott surname page is unusually large for a disambig right now and this presents an advantage to the user who only cares about those with the survey who are named James. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. When it comes to finding aids, redundancy is a good thing. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (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.