Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam's apple (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adam's apple (disambiguation)[edit]
Disambig pages with only two items are essentially meaningless, particularly when there's little chance of it ever being enlarged. Nothing currently links to it. Vicarious 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but this probably should have been prodded, if not speedied. Melchoir 11:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's "prodded" as in {{prod}}, Vicarious. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. Tonywalton | Talk 12:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my nom. Vicarious 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. (aeropagitica) 17:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I thought disambiguation pages were meant to differentiate between two or more articles that had the same name...Jcuk 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the issue. Yes disambig pages are a generally good thing but when there are only two pages listed to differentiate between it's significantly more efficient to automatically go to one page (the more common one) and add a note at the top of it about the other page. This has already happened, and in fact the disambig page is not even linked to at the moment. Vicarious 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix links. It's true that disambiguation pages are supposed to have at least 3 links. Vicarious has raised this on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and everybody is in agreement that there's nothing inherently evil with disambiguation pages with two links, and they should be left in place where they are created by historical accident. Moreover, "Primary topic" pages are supposed to be infrequent, and only after consensus building. They are currently less than 3% of disambiguated topics. --William Allen Simpson 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everybody is not in agreement. First off, only 5 people (including you and I) have even commented, so at the very least 20% (me) disagree, and secondly you're misreading some of the other people if you think they're opposed to the idea. There's a lot of caveats to most of their arguments and at least one person hasn't picked a side. Irregardless I did not use a nonexistent policy in my arguments to delete this page and I think it is inappropriate of you to use a nonexistant concensus to decide this page be kept. Vicarious 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, a simple search found an album and a couple more songs, and there should be a "See also" to Forbidden Fruit (which has a reciprocal "See also"). That is another good reason for not deleting such pages. --William Allen Simpson 18:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vicarious, you came late to the discussion, made up a "precedent" that 2 article disambiguation pages should be deleted (although there is no guideline anywhere that proposes or permits that action), and were wrong about whether "there's little chance of it ever being enlarged." Clearly, you didn't even search for existing references: missing several songs, another album, and a horse. --William Allen Simpson 06:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, you said I made up a precedent and then said there is no such guideline which are very different things, but I did not claim either of them. In my nomination I did not say, delete as per so and so example, or delete as per so and so guideline, I simply gave my reasoning for why I thought it should be deleted. In case you I haven't been clear thus far I'll spell it out, I have never claimed any precedent or policy because neither of them exist. As you pointed out on the disambig talk someone is using this case as a precedent but I have no part of it, and before you said something had no knowledge of it.
As for the additions you made to the disambig page I find all of them dubious. Especially the album you refer to, which doesn't yet exist so you put up a red link for it (the article not the album). I made a point of not reverting all your additions because I feared it might seem like I was being petty but I truly think that page only has two legitamate links. Further discussion of those links belongs at that page though, see you there. Vicarious 12:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, you said I made up a precedent and then said there is no such guideline which are very different things, but I did not claim either of them. In my nomination I did not say, delete as per so and so example, or delete as per so and so guideline, I simply gave my reasoning for why I thought it should be deleted. In case you I haven't been clear thus far I'll spell it out, I have never claimed any precedent or policy because neither of them exist. As you pointed out on the disambig talk someone is using this case as a precedent but I have no part of it, and before you said something had no knowledge of it.
- 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.