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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Haig (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is a contested speedy and prod. Guidelines are clear, if we only have two articles of this name and one of them is the primary meaning we do not need a disambiguation page. We do not know if an article will ever be written about the actor, and if it is whether it will pass the test of notability. This page is unnecessary. PatGallacher (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middle names don't count, so that eliminates a recently-added entry. The redlinked actor will never ever merit an article. That leaves one very famous field marshal and a not-so-well-known football club, which deserves a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Primary topic plus two other topics. I've added the blue link to the red link entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep redlink meets MOS:DABRL, so three valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I have had a look at MOS:DABRL and it's not clear to me that this red link does meet it. Could you clarify? PatGallacher (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." If you disagree, you are welcome to remove the red link from the blue-linked article That's My Boy (1932 film). Then we would still disambiguate the actor, however, but without the red link, leaving only the blue link in the description. If you disagree with that, you are welcome to remove the mention of Haig from that blue-linked article. If there is consensus to do so, then the entry should be removed from the disambiguation page, at which point disambiguation could be accomplished without the page, through just a hatnote instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at the IMDB entry for the actor [1], only 14 entries, looks like mostly minor parts in obscure films, I don't think this person is notable. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to write an article and defend its notability. PatGallacher (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being an appropriate disambig page. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid dab page. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now, a hatnote has been created to circumvent the disambiguation page. "Douglas Haig" is directed at the person and there is a hatnote directing one to the football club. There is no other notable target that would need to be disambiguated at this time. Tavix | Talk 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is, per MOS:DABMENTION. I mentioned that above, but it was still incorrectly deleted from the dab on 10:03, 29 July 2010[2] (before your !vote) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That guy is not notable. Tavix | Talk 04:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he's not notable, then he shouldn't be noted on the linked article. "If there is consensus to do so, then the entry should be removed from the disambiguation page, at which point disambiguation could be accomplished without the page, through just a hatnote instead." -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references to the actor Douglas Haig I could find were in cast listings of films, so, by a lack of sources, an article on this person is unlikely ever to be written, or, if it is, likely to be removed as insufficiently notable. --Lambiam 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard practice where there are only two topics for an article title and one is a primary topic is to use hatnotes. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But until there are only two topics, the standard practice is to use a disambiguation page, as in this case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are (apparently) three possible entities that a person searching on "Douglas Haig" could be looking for, it appears. Obviously over 99% (I would guess) of people searching on "Douglas Haig" are looking for Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. The hatnote in that article is for the other <1%. But what are those <1% looking for? Who knows? They may be looking for the Argentine football team, the actor, or another person. I don't want to make the judgment that no one of these <1% are looking for the actor. The only harm in keeping the disambig page is that it will add an extra click for people looking for the football club. I think the trade-off is worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2010 (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.