Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Watson (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson (disambiguation)

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

None of the entries listed have articles. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They don't need to have articles, although one of them does, Let There Be Sunshine. They need to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, see MOS:DABMENTION. The disambiguation page then gives information to the reader on all Emma Watsons we have information on. Nothing to be gained from deletion either. Dabs are cheap and this has 4 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with DABMENTION but, except the primary topic, all other 3 entries are non-notable and unlikely to be searched:

Emma, the novel character is not mentioned in Tess Gerritsen as per DABMENTION, neither do the novel have an article.
I doubt how likely is that to search for a character in an unfinished novel.
Emma in sitcom The Andy Griffith Show is only a recurring character that appeared in just 6 in a total of 249 episodes.

Dabs are for articles sharing same title or sometimes notable non-existing titles that are likely to be searched. I don't see that necessity here. Otherwise, as you said if we are adding all names we have information on, then every BLP here will need a dab since names are always shared. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Sunshine, have you looked at MOS:DABMENTION? The criterion for an entry is: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Nothing about notability and all the entries clearly meet it except the 2nd, which, as you say, no longer has any mention of Emma Watson (although it did when the entry was added). With that deleted, 3 valid entries remain. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've jsut added a 5th entry, which meets MOS:DABMENTION too. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about notability - Well, that is a COMMONSENSE. --Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion within an article (and hence for a mention in a dab page) is lower than notability: see WP:NOTEWORTHY. – Uanfala 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I mentioned common sense. If notability is not considered, then every BLP here will have a dab with at least two 2 entries. I don't think any of these entries in EW are likely to be search.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The main character in an Austen novel fragment is certainly notable and the rest scraped together are enough to push it over the line. I'm leaving out the 2011 Ladies' World Pea Shooting Champion because that's unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. All the entries link to articles with the briefest possible mentions: I wouldn't encourage the creation of dab pages consisting solely of such entries, but now that they've been created I equally don't see the point of trying to get them deleted. – Uanfala 10:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all reasonable dab-mention entries. PamD 15:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By itself, the Austen character would require disambiguation. If the dab page didn't exist, the character could be handled with a TWODAB hatnote, but the dab page suffices as there are some other legitimate, albeit marginal, entries. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bkonrad. Satisfies DABMENTION. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:02, 20 November 2017 (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.