Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Race Relations (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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Race Relations (disambiguation)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnecessary orphan dab page: hatnote on primary topic article does all that is needed. PamD 23:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am inclined to keep this disambiguation page so as to help clarify the difference between two different organisations of the same name but I can see that a hatnote on the two primary topic articles (already added) might be enough. As the author of the disambiguation page in question I am a bit biased though.--Discott (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side question - if the article is deleted then where should the term (Institute of Race Relations) be pointed to? The South African Institution is older and better known in South Africa. I dont know the status of the other institute of the same name in the UK.--Discott (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PRECISION. There is only one organisation called the Institute of Race Relations, and that is the one in the UK. According to it's own website, the South African organisation is called the "South African Institute of Race Relations". According to WP:ATDAB we should be using such natural disambiguation to differentiate. See also WP:SMALLDETAILS, which bids us use the correct name as the primary title, and the small detail the country name in the proper title as a the reason to keep the correct name as title, not Dab. A hatnote rather than a dab is sufficient - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss the article titles, we are discussing if the Dab page which links 2 orgs with similar name can be kept or not. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With both articles at their correct titles, as they are now, there is no need for this disambiguation page (and nothing will link to it), because there is a hatnote on Institute of Race Relations pointing to the South African IRR. Naming of articles affects dab pages. PamD 11:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. This is a pointless DAB that should never have been created. Two articles have very separate names, it is pointless to have a DAB when a hatnote is more helpful. (And when I made my comment, the UK organisation's page had been moved to something unnecessary: it is now back to where it should be, making this DAB even more redundant than it was before.) - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the user who moved it back to where it should be. I agree with folks above that the hatnote is helpful here, but there is no requirement to make only 1 choice between the dab and the hatnote. The dab page can still exist. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it can doesn’t mean it should. It’s a pointless addition that aids no-one. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This dab page won't help anyone: no-one will reach it, as the hatnote at Institute of Race Relations does not point to it. An orphan dab page like this does no good and is potentially problematic if there is a new article with the title Institute of Race Relations (foo) whose editor sensibly adds it to the existing hatnote but does not know about this dab page, does not edit it, and it then becomes incomplete. Just delete this unnecessary dab page. If anyone wants to argue that Institute of Race Relations should not be the article title for the UK body, ie that the UK body is not the Primary Topic of the term, then a Requested Move discussion would be the way to go. But at present people using that term to find the UK body get there directly; people wanting the SA body get there in one further click. The existence of an unnecessary disambiguation page helps no-one. PamD 16:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DAB is made redundant by the hatnote and currently serves no purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2018 (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.