Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air pirate (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air pirate (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Falls under WP:TWODABS. The only other possible article that includes "air pirate" is only a partial title match and not even in the same language. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page currently has four entries. Three of them, air pirate, air piracy, and The Air Pirates are valid dab entries and distinct subjects so TWODABS is an invalid rationale. Plus the user may have actually been looking for something at Sky pirate (disambiguation) so that link is also useful. SpinningSpark 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spinningspark:Air pirate doesn't fall into TWODABS since it's the main article that would have the hatnote. Therefore it only has two disambiguated articles, aircraft hijacking and Air Pirates and TWODABS applies._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - TWODABS only mandates using a hatnote if there is only a primary topic plus one other. In this case there is a primary topic plus two others. TWODABS leaves that situation to editor choice whether to have a dab page or hatnotes. I would argue a dab page serves our readers better in this case for two reasons. Firstly, sky pirate is a synonym for at least two of the entries so it is helpful to have that on the page. Secondly, 1-211 Attack-Reconnaissance Battalion is a possible future article which would make a fourth entry. SpinningSpark 23:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Spinningspark: Please refer to this sentence: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." The hatnote would not use too much text as it would read, "This article is about fictional pirates. For real-life use, see air piracy. For the group, see Air Pirates." It is unlikely an article on the attack battalion will be made, so that is a moot argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not 2 dabs, it a primary topic plus 2. I've edited the page with various format improvements. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that WP:TWODABS doesn't apply here. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are now four entries on the page (including primary topic). I have restored a previously removed entry with a link to a different, more relevant, page. Cannot be TWODABS now even if primary is excluded. SpinningSpark 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The disambiguation page now has a total of 4 links. Disambiguation ("keep") appears to be the the right choice, no sense in having 3 hat notes on every article involved. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:42, 16 March 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.