The result of the debate was Convert to article. Although the articles mentioned in discussion may have notability issues, an article about
James Edwin Nash, the MLB pitcher, does not. I have created the article as the least contentious choice, leaving the option for editors to include disambiguation links and hatnotes once other notable articles are created. - Mtmelendez(
Talk|
UB|
Home)11:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Confusing and trivial redirect. Current Wikipedia links through this redirect concern: the cofounder of
Wax Trax! Records (2 links), a current reporter for
KTLA news (1 link), a 1966
Sporting News Rookie of the Year (1 link), and a
WikiProject_AFL subpage referring to a 1930s Australian Football League player. None concern the Jim Nash who was an assistant cutter for the Centenary Diamond. All Jim Nashes seem equally obscure, making the redirect seem equally unhelpful to a generic user.
rynne14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
If there are that many notable Jim Nashes, then it seems like the page should be converted to a disambiguation page. That does not require deletion of the redirect from pagehistory. Just overwrite the current contents of the page.
Rossami(talk)19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. I guess my concern is that none are particularly notable. The news reporter and two athletes, for example, only show up as parts of partially-wikified lists of names, while the diamond cutter doesn't show up anywhere else on Wikipedia. Furthermore,
The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
. A search for "Jim Nash" only results in 19 total hits on Wikipedia; is a dab page necessary for such a small search result, especially considering no Jim Nash has a Wikipedia article? --
rynne20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Keep. This is a plausible misspelling, especially since it's a translated name - if someone sees this mistranslated elsewhere and searches on it, they should still be able to find the right information. The other
Ōgawara Station does have a hatnote for
Ōkawara Station, after all, and vice versa; also, the (Kyoto) in both links makes it clear where they are intended to go. —
Gavia immer(talk)13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not only are they plausible transliterations of the foreign language name, these were also the former sites of the article before the nominator moved the article (which only happened earlier today). Now, you could argue that the middle link is deletable as {{db-author}} since he/she promptly moved it to a new location but the original location should stay - and I think that even the middle mistake is plausible.
Rossami(talk)19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.