Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soyuz-2 (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. Nakon 04:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz-2 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Now that Soyuz-2 (rocket) has been moved to Soyuz-2 as primary topic, we can delete this disambig page per WP:2DABS. — JFG ^talk 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see two different articles, nothing moved, so the disambiguation is valid. DeVerm (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete changed !vote after explanation and my comments below. Close surprised me as I was expecting more votes/re-listing so happy to get a 2nd chance DeVerm (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the trick is there are two different articles, Soyuz-2 (the 1968 mission) and Soyuz 2 (the rocket). Having such close titles is probably a poor choice, but that is not a matter for AfD. I respectfully suggest that JFG withdraws their nomination, if (as I assume) they mistakenly thought the articles had been merged. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding here: indeed there are two articles and they refer to vastly different subjects: a 1968 test flight and a current rocket family; they were never considered for merging. However the dab page has only two entries and one of them (the rocket) is a primary topic, so according to the WP:TWODABS guidelines it is sufficient to have hatnotes in each article pointing to the other. Quote: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) Now the existence of the dab page doesn't disturb me per se, it just happens to be useless, as the hatnotes are already in place. @DeVerm: @Tigraan: I hope this answers your concerns. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and sorry for the misunderstanding.

I do agree that, as it stands now, the DAB page is useless, and I do think the rocket is primary topic. But the titles are not really well-organized.

I suggest to move the page about 1968 to Soyuz 2 (1968 mission) or another such title and redirect Soyuz 2 → Soyuz-2. Leave Soyuz-2 in place, no DAB but hatnotes both ways. I do not know if there is a relevant MOS entry but it seems that such close titles are likely to cause confusion even if the mission has a space and the rocket a dash in all sources.

In the unlikely event consensus emerges that a DAB page is needed, put it at Soyuz-2 or Soyuz 2 and redirect the other, and move both pages elsewhere (Soyuz 2 (space mission) and Soyuz 2 (rocket)?), as that is still a superior option to the current state of things (a DAB that none will ever reach).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must be old because for me the 1968 mission would be the primary article, but I have no objection to it being the other way around. In fact, I completely agree with the construction as described by Tigraan. DeVerm (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the !vote, since it is really a delete now. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted? Seriously?... I hope it was a "no quota" thing but I suspect it is more of a "nomination + two keep = NC yet" thing. Oh well, I suppose that is why one should always remember to strike one's vote when good discussion happened. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-listed upon request st170e^talk 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I saw the request and then checked back to realize you actually closed the AfD as a keep at first. Hmm, seriously? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I closed AfD, I was under the impression that the consensus was to keep. If you're going to change your mind then strike your vote so it doesn't make things confusing. st170e^talk 19:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the hatnotes do it all. PamD 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No big deal, but I would say the hatnote on Soyuz-2 should be sufficient.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing here, nothing that can't be mentioned individually. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 3 June 2016 (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.