Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Burnham

Andrew Burnham

Andrew Burnham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging this into Burnham (surname), since both entries are already listed there. Also, per WP:ONEOTHER, a disambiguation page is not needed. CosdonH (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. CosdonH (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support merging, but make Andrew Burnham redirect to Andy Burnham the future PM is obviously primary over their name, and this redirect previously existed until 2019. 1brianm7 (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Support the redirect to Andy Burnham. CosdonH (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Andy Burnham. No merge needed as the content is already listed at Burnham (surname). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 11:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Andy Burnham as primary if he becomes prime minister. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andy Burnham. Conveniently, Andrew Burnham (priest) is already disambiguated. Fortek67 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: we don't redirect individual names to surname lists. If redirected to Andy Burnham, then there must be a hatnote added there directing readers to the bishop's article - he must not become invisible in the encyclopedia just because a well-known person shares his name. There seems very little evidence that the politician is ever known as "Andrew" - the statement of persons nominated and his UK Parliament profile use "Andy" - so I lean towards Keep: saves cluttering the possible PM's article with a hatnote, and allows the bishop to be found. PamD 07:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is clearly related to the recent interest in the politician, but most readers are able to navigate without these sorts of crutches, as we talked about in Talk:Burnham already.

If we look at the trend of very recent page views of these articles we can see that about 50 to 200 people a day navigated to "Andrew Burnham", and the pattern matches that of the politician. But about 100 to 800 people a day also navigated to the priest's article. Were these people actually confused by the very short list at "Andrew Burnham", or was this just random spillover from a hatnote on top of Andy Burnham? We can't know that right now, but what we can see is that about 300,000 to 900,000 people a day navigated to the politician's article. That's the elephant in the room - Andrew got around 0.1% of the interest in Andy.

It's waaaaaaaaay too soon to be micro-optimizing for a possibility of 0.1% of navigation errors. This is a solution in search of a problem. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. No different from any other human name disambiguation page. No idea why it should be a special case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Andy Burnham per pageviews, no need for a merge to the surname, just a hatnote will do, Andrew Burnham (disambiguation) will need to be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2026 (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.