Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Howell

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 keep. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Howell

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

This disambiguation page doesn't lead anywhere. It contains four non-notable people, one of whom I made a redirect for (the musician's "article" now redirects to Outlaws (band), and even that is debatable considering his short tenure in the band). This disambiguation page simply isn't useful. Furthermore, none of the other pages can be created as redirects. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlaws (band). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the entries satisfy WP:DABREDLINK and/or WP:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: the baseball player is likely to get an article, the others meet WP:DABMENTION, it could be of use to either a reader looking for one of these people or an editor about to create an article for one of them. PamD 18:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid page. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premature to create a disambiguation page when 3 of the 4 links involved are not actual pages. Perhaps if the other pages are created we can reconsider, but the possibility they might be created isn't sufficient. The entire purpose of a WP:DAB only occurs when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." mikeman67 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:DABRL#Red_links. I ran the what links here test on the three red links; two of them pass (and of course the blue link), so the page seems good to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2014 (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.