- 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John Willis Fleming (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete. Per WP:MOSDAB, a dab cannot exist with only one entry with a blue link. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relax. It isn't doing any harm, and somebody will just have to recreate it when others eventually do create some more pages. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We also have John Fleming (disambiguation), which lists all four of the people on this page, and a number of other John Flemings. Perhaps, instead of the more specific dab page, John Willis Fleming could just point to the basic John Fleming dab page and this could be gotten rid of. (If we do that, we should be sure to add the full names from this one to the basic John Fleming dab page.)--ragesoss (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as a redirect to John Fleming (disambiguation), not as a separate disambiguation page. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a disambiguation to only one page. The rest of the people is listed at John Fleming (disambiguation). Tavix (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You seem to have missed the point. ALL of the people are now listed on JF(d); hence redirect from JWF(d) to JF(d). Pdfpdf (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. That isn't a reason to redirect though.Tavix (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Obviously it is a reason to redirect - presumably, you don't think it is a good enough reason? Could I bother you to explain please? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There won't be a need to redirect it if we replace the link on John Willis Fleming, since there will be no pages left linking to John Willis Fleming (disambiguation) and no one is likely to search explicitly for a page called "John_Willis_Fleming_(disambiguation)". In fact, since the John Fleming one is already more useful even for people only interested in people named John Willis Fleming, I'm replacing the link now.--ragesoss (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per ragesoss immediately above. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How long do we wait before it can be deleted? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the article on patience. After you have done that, I'll let you know that it usually takes 5 days for an article to reach a consensus, sometimes less due to WP:SNOW, and sometimes more if there is a split consensus. Tavix (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you make a habit of responding to requests for information with insults? If so, I suggest that you may wish to change your modus operandi. Thank you for eventually supplying the requested information, but a link to the relevant section of the MoS, (which, by the way, I still haven't identified), would be considerably more useful than the link supplied. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I made a request for information. You assumed I was being impatient. That doesn't sound like AGF to me ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2008 (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.
