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.
Delete. At most, since it's only DABing two things (and this is an unlikely search term), there should be a pointer in the other article to the book series containing the character of the same name. --
Dennis The Tiger (
Rawr and
stuff)
15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. It takes only two valid target articles to make a valid dab page. If either target is deleted, this can be easily turned into a redirect.
B.Wind (
talk)
19:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Two valid targets are all that's needed for a base name (no primary topic) disambiguation page, true. That is not the case here. This dab page is an orphan, because there is no need for it. Readers looking for either article will find the one sought by entering
David Zimmer in the search box or by clicking through the hatnote on the primary topic article
David Zimmer. So, this dab page is useless and harmless and should be deleted since someone took the trouble to identify it. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. When there is a third David Zimmer to add, it can be recreated. For now, since there are only two articles, reciprocal dablinks between the two are easier for the end user. LinguistAtLarge21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Dab pages are cheap, especially when they already exist. It's more trouble to delete them & convert them to hat notes than to leave them be. We shouldnt deliberately create new ones when there are 2 alternatives, but i see no reason to remove any which are not confusing, or in situations where one of the two is much the more important. DGG (
talk)
06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong delete Disambiguations are supposed to guide someone to two or more different articles when there are multiple articles. There is only one notable person that needs disambiguating, so the disambiguation is not necessary. If the other articles are created, I don't see why this can't be recreated, but at this moment, it is NOT needed. Tavix(talk)00:48, 9 January 2009 (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.