Joyce brothers: Google results for the term, even with words like "psychologist" and "doctor" removed, still return the more famous Joyce Brothers , but no James or anyone else.  Should be a redirect targeted to her and labeled {{ r from miscapitalization }} , as I think that result would be far less surprising for readers (I certainly wasn't expecting it).  I would oppose a hatnote as I think this is all a bit too silly to exist in any form, but if it's insisted upon then I'm willing to renege.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations .  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking of surprise, I was not expecting this to have been up at RfD just this month.  Quite the hot button issue I suppose.  Looking at that discussion, I don't think it should've been closed as early as it was, so I will argue against a procedural close of this as I think the issue is unresolved.  Pinging Shhhnotsoloud , jnestorius , 162 etc.  , and Presidentman who participated, and * Pppery * who closed, as it's only fair if I'm going to claim this as a continuing discussion.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per previous discussion.  I am neutral on renaming to Joyce brothers (disambiguation) as long as there is a {{ redirect }} hatnote from Joyce Brothers .  jnestorius ( talk ) 10:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'm 100% in favour of deleting this, but opening an AfD immediately following a consensus at the RfD discussion isn't the right way to do it.  WP:MRV would be your next step.  162 etc. ( talk ) 16:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The correct venue for challenging a closure at WP:RFD would be WP:DRV not WP:MRV .  But I have no objection to my RfD closure being undone and the RfD relisted - looking back at it with a clearer head I agree my restore closure really doesn't properly reflect the consensus so you don't need to use any formal review processes.  * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Had I seen the RfD first, I would've done just that.  My mistake for not doing so.  Bit too late for it now, but I'm glad you're aware and hopefully it helps your process in the future.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the consensus at RfD (now I've seen jnestorius's rationale).  Shhhnotsoloud ( talk ) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The fundamental question here is: will this aid readers in finding something for which they might be searching.  Yes, yes it will.  BD2412 T 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See, but I very much disagree with this.  Sure, readers might be searching for the famous writer James Joyce and his far less famous brother, or the other two brothers, or they could (and I think far more likely are; see the page views where Dr. Brothers consistently gets hundreds of times the viewership as the brothers other than James) looking for the famous psychologist with this exact name.  If we're desparate to keep this, then jnestorius' suggestion to add "(disambiguation)" might be useful, but regardless I don't see how this isn't a SURPRISE issue.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 03:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and move to Joyce brothers (disambiguation) .  The answer to BD2412's fundamental question is an emphatic no: most people search in lowercase, and someone typing "joyce brothers" is almost certainly looking for the primary-topic psychologist.  I guess there's no policy basis to delete the disambiguation page (even though I'm not convinced it's useful), but keeping it at the current title would make things harder for readers.  Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no objection to moving the page; I just don't think it should be deleted.  Of course, we have a distinct process for requesting page moves .  BD2412 T 01:14, 18 July 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.

Discussion outcome: keep