Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Ferguson

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 Speedy keep‎. I'm withdrawing this and closing as speedy keep. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ferguson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This disambiguates between exactly two articles. This is unnecessary as the existence of each article can be dealt with by hatnotes on either pointing to the other, which I have ensured is already happening. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Football, Disambiguations, Scotland, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any relevant guideline for such disambiguation pages? If yes, then it may help. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone comes up with a rationale for one or the other being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Until then, this is a correct disambiguation page. PamD 09:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExclusiveEditor and @PamD. There is policy on this at WP:ONEOTHER which states "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article". The question of whether one or the other is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant as hatnotes at the top of each article can point to the other article. A disambiguation page is simply not needed with only two articles to disambiguate between and results in unneeded mouse clicks. TarnishedPath^talk 09:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no primary topic then the WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC guideline applies (not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC): there is no policy in this area. The guideline has been carefully written to be as incomprehensible as possible so as to encourage misunderstanding and repeated, prolonged discussion. Thincat (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can still take guidance in the form of general principles from other parts of policy, such as what I stated above.

There is also the third example given in WP:D2D. We have a limited number of articles here, two to be precise. One article is a footballer and the other is a politician and so there is extremely low likelihood that someone searching for the subject they are interested in is going to arrive and the wrong article. There is simply no need for a disambiguation page to add more steps for people to reach the subject they want and if per chance they do somehow end up at the incorrect article that is easily dealt with by hatnotes that exist on each of them. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the politician looks like a clear primary topic to me. Geschichte (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Look, for your arguement that there are just two articles and even if there is no one primary topic, hatnotes would be enough- I would say that its not like that. People searching for just the name 'Martin Ferguson' or those linking it somewhere using html etc. may find a 'no article found' error if they do so. Either Martin Ferguson stays a disambiguation page, or you move one of the person's article, there or ~~redirect it to one of them~~ (The last one is possible but doesn't make any sense). Overall the page getting deleted is not the option. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pam. Giant Snowman 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statement just above, either let it remain a disambiguation page, or make one of the two the primary topic. I don't see the point in deletion. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2024 (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.