Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instrument maker

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. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 19:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument maker[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page, but there are no articles with similar names to disambiguate. It would be possible to create a redirect instrument maker (music) pointing to Musical instrument#Construction, and another instrument maker (scientific) pointing to Scientific instrument#List of scientific instruments manufacturers, and retarget the items in the disambiguation page to those redirects, but this still makes only two items, since the third item, Luthier, is not a similar name. The redirects would be enough without the disambiguation page until a third type of instrument maker is identified. On the other hand, there is the point that redirects can't be hat-noted (although the sections in the target article could be). —Anne Delong (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is the point to this AfD? Is there any question that "instrument maker" has two valid and distinct meanings and that disambiguation is required between them, even if the two targets are not called Instrument maker (musical) and Instrument maker (scientific)? Nor is this any reason to raise any spurious renames for them! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that disambiguation pages are intended to differentiate between article names, not meanings of phrases. If the page was replaced with two redirects as I suggested above, this would actually speed up the user's access to the information, since the two items would appear as the phrase was typed, allowing quick selection of the desire one. Right now, the user is sent to a disambiguation page, which has links which point to other pages, and not even to the sections which have minimal information about instrument makers. However, my understanding of the protocols for disambiguation may be in error, so I am happy to go along with whatever consensus develops.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the two lexically-close terms both being "instrument maker". The only unusual aspect is that both terms are identical but they don't (as usually happens) have disambiguators added (in which case we'd just go straight there). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous...even it does not presently result in a titling conflict between two or more articles." --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a touch of WP:IAR if need be: the term is so ambiguous that the reader will be best served by finding this dab page to point to the pages about the two kinds of instruments, and can then navigate onwards from the appropriate page. PamD 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems useful and acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 7 October 2015 (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.