Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effectiveness (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. ✗plicit 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness (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)

This page is not a disambiguation page that lists articles that might otherwise be titled "Effectiveness". It consists of WP:Partial title matches, and "a disambiguation page is not a search index". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as particularly useful. On the one hand, it's veering into being a dictionary definition. But on the other hand, it can't turn into a proper disambiguation page because there are simply too many instances of this very common word. Whichever way it turns, it doesn't quite work as a WP list. Elemimele (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest recategorizing as a set-index article per WP:SIA, rather than keeping it as a disambiguation page. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cielquiparle: It couldn't be recategorised as an SIA at this title: is there another page title? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe Effectiveness (types)? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the entries simply represent various subtopics or facets of the topic Effectiveness. But many others don't, instead reflecting other, unrelated, uses of the term, like Effective interest rate or Effective temperature. These are partial matches, but for at least some of them, the dab term "effective" can be used without the accompanying noun, making it appropriate for disambiguation. It will be difficult to disentangle all these groups though. – Uanfala (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might make sense to delete the entire section under "Effective" (adjective). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-03 ✍️ create ← 2016-12 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DABNOT a disambiguation page is not a list of long descriptions or dictionary definitions. A disambiguation page is not a search index. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's full of partial matches and variations on the word: "effectivity", "effect", "effective". Ironically, it's not effective at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2023 (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.