Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zimmer (disambiguation)

:{{la|David Zimmer (disambiguation)}} ([{{fullurl:David Zimmer (disambiguation)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zimmer (disambiguation)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The article on the politician David Zimmer already has a disambig link at the top to The Book of Illusions. Graymornings_(talk) 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep (I created the dab long ago). Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in :Category:Human name disambiguation pages, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Human_name_disambiguation_pages&from=Zi]. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, harmless but useless, so it should be deleted if nominated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete. Per WP:NOHARM, "doesn't hurt" is not a valid reason to keep it. The assertion that a human-name dab page should be kept because it appears in :Category:Human name disambiguation pages is circular and likewise does not justify keeping. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)

• 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.  LinguistAtLarge  21:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• Keep, only because a third valid entry has been added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep multiple routes to the same article are best. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

: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.