Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Bacon

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 redirect to Bacon (surname). (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N. Bacon

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

Unnecessary, incomplete and just a bad idea. We already have Nathaniel Bacon and Nicholas Bacon. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to deletion, but would like to note that this page was originally created as a redirect to Nicholas Bacon, which I changed to a separate disambiguation page because there are meanings of N. Bacon not covered by Nicholas Bacon. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing: there are no Normans,[1] Natalies or even Naphthalis? Still, it's not SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bacon (surname). Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bacon (surname), to allow for the 5 Nathaniels and a Nick, as well as the 3 Nicholases listed there, compared to the 5 on the Nicholas page... OK, have now added the two missing Nicholases to the surname page. PamD 08:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this sort of redirect seems a generally bad idea: if you're trying to find Geno Washington and you type G. Washington, you're lost - no route to the article you need. PamD 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is why I disambiguated it. For the record, I also made the following around the same time:
  - E. Thomas
  - G. Anderson
  - M. Hopkins
  - M. Howe
  - P. Cohen
  - P. Levine
  - P. Seymour
  - T. Anderson
  - W. Walker
- They should probably all receive the same treatment. bd2412 T 15:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think all should be redirected to the dab page or surname page: having these parallel dab pages for one chunk of the alphabet seems dangerous, as someone creating a new Eliza Thomas is unlikely to add it to the now-existing E. Thomas dab page. (Probably fairly unlikely even to think of adding it to the Thomas (surname) page - and it's not something I've hitherto thought to check for while stub-sorting - but extremely unlikely to add it to the "E. Thomas" page). PamD 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In theory, a bot could do these things (although in practice, it is easy enough to find given names starting with a particular letter while searching a surname page). bd2412 T 16:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Very few of the articles mention that the persons are known as "initial surname"; but G. Anderson (1861 cricketer) does. His first name is unknown. So maybe he should be primary topic for G. Anderson? Christian75 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bacon (surname) – redundant, auxiliary layer of disambiguation. Also, it strikes me that a user would be more likely to type out the first name in full before searching, rather than relying on the initial. Super Mario Man 05:03, 5 December 2013 (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.