Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cautionary Tales (disambiguation)

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautionary Tales (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are only two articles with this title, therefor the disambiguatyion page is quite redundant. Disambiguation is specifically ment to differentiate between article titles, not subjects. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense WP:DISAMBIGUATION. This request appears to be related to RM Talk:Cautionary Tales (Heroes) In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make it nonsense. Since there are only two articles with this exact title, disambiguation is not required, meaning a DAB page is also no needed. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we disambiguate by article title as opposed to content Cautionary Tales (Belloc) exists in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many valid entries, some with articles, some meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn. Melonkelon (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn. older ≠ wiser 13:37, 12 August 2015 (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/2015 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boleyn - many valid entries, several of which would have merited a redirect to the article they are mentioned in (eg author) if they had been the only usage of the phrase; as they are not, a dab page is perfectly appropriate. PamD 19:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 13 August 2015 (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.