Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eponyms of the kiwi

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. Wizardman 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eponyms of the kiwi[edit]

I originally speedily deleted this page as a redundant page to Kiwi (disambiguation), but it was brought to my attention that it may not be quite as clear as that, so I undeleted it so as to put it through an AfD. To me, it seems that all of the entries on Eponyms of the kiwi that could legitimately be at Kiwi (disambiguation) per disambiguation guidelines (WP:D, MoS:DP), and the rest of the entries at Eponyms of the kiwi just happen to have the word "Kiwi" in them, and be about New Zealand. Those entries definitly don't need to be on Kiwi (disambiguation), since they are not easily confusable with the term "Kiwi" (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches}. As for the rest of the page, I was musing if it could be considered a set index article, but the entries don't appear to all be about the same thing, just all have "Kiwi" in the title. -- Natalya 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sensible collection of usages of word which is so much the symbol of NZ that it's the icon for the stub tag. (NOT Australia!) Many of them are indeed the sort of thing which would be deleted from Kiwi (disambiguation), and this article is an appropriate home for them as illustrating the wide use of the word. It might need to be renamed, as according to Eponym that word only applies to things/places named after a person, not after a species of bird! PamD (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, totally unnecessary article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary with the disambiguation page.-gadfium 20:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all the notable stuff can be covered in the dab page. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider how to title it and how to describe such articles. Its actually a useful collocation. DGG (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see why this all can't be on the dab page - people are far more likely to find that than this. --Helenalex (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kiwi (disambiguation). No real reason why everything on the page couldn't go there, usage note (now corrected) and all. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Usage note"? I could not have dreamed up a better example of complete disregard for the meaning of the first sentence of MoSDab:
  Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace.

That 23Kb page is devoted to describing all of the thing anticipably useful in the task of the non-articles called Dabs. The usage note is a perfect example of what it intends to prohibit: a Dab is a navigational device, far more like a Rdr than an article, and marked longer than a Dab only bcz

the Dab, a mechanism for getting users to any of 3 or 17 potential articles from one title, has to have its 3 or 17 entries on one page, while the mechanism for getting users to one article from 3 or 17 potential titles, has to have the (same) Rdr-markup on 3 or 17 Rdr pages;
each Rdr does its job without a user decision beyond typing, or following a lk to, the Rdr's title, whereas a user, having typed or clicked to a Dab entry has to choose among the links, and may need a few extra words (in the entries for the pages they aren't looking) to winnow the entries down to one.

Thus the usage note, no doubt valuable, belongs on a template transcluded into each of the relevant articles, not on a Dab, where

it presents clutter in the way of quick navigation, and
users who follow well maintained lks (bypassing the Rdr the original editor may appropriately have used, lest the editing bog down) straight to the page will never see it!

--Jerzy•t 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in some form or another, perhaps a merge or a rename is needed). As noted by DGG and PamD. Mathmo ^Talk 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong NoMergeWithDab; make a template out of the usage note; no opinion among delete, keep, and keep-but-rename.
I felt obliged not to unilaterally discard information from this formerly Dab-named page, and thus instead to move the page (where it can be weighed in this fashion), and then to build a proper Dab by mostly selecting from among its entries. The second sentence of MoSDab says
Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term.

The reason for the portion that starts "usually" is that Dabs are needed when the "base title" of the Dab (Kiwi/kiwi in this case) is ambiguous, and are most efficient in that necessary role when entries for articles that no one would reasonably consider so titling are excluded. (E.g. "Kiwi Omnicup, or "Kiwicup" are two reasonable titles for the same thing, but "Kiwi" is not a reasonable third possibility, and does not belong on the Kiwi Dab page. Such cases may be a argument for keeping the page under discussion.)
I don't claim there is a bright line: I prefer to have a lk to Judy Garland on the Dab page Judy, bcz she made 5 albums with "Judy" but not "Garland" in their titles: an Afghan student of English, or a punk rocker, might read a Web page that referred to her as just "Judy", and seek info there. Still, if what it took to make Judy Tenuta fans leave that dab alone is to exile Garland to her other home at Judy (given name), i'd consider the case gray enuf to live with it. One the other hand, no Dab page should be turned into an encyclopedic analog of an "If it's not Sco'ish, it's craaep" store, as would be done by a merge of the page under discussion with Kiwi (disambiguation).
--Jerzy•t 07:35 &07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to Jerzy's comments, I know I mentioned it in the summary here, but what Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches says is that entries on a disambiguation page should only be there if they can legitimately be confused with the term being disambiguated, not just because they have the term in question in their title. -- Natalya 10:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the useful ones are already on the Kiwi (disambiguation) page. Also, Eponym is the wrong word to describe this list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2008 (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.