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.
Disambiguation pages with no topics do disambiguate. There are no topics on Wikipedia linked here by name, so this page isn't necessary.
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, there are two "Simon Reed"s mentioned in WP, both plausible searches. Page would be useful to someone searching for a person by this name. I have created redirects.
MB22:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Each of these men would merit a redirect from their name to the article where they are mentioned. As their names are the same, a dab page is appropriate.
PamD08:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please see
MOS:DABREDIR. In the case of the ship captain, there's just one sentence about the name including an acknolwedgement that the name might not in fact be "Simon Reed". For the announcer: The Eurosport article contains just a sentence about his firing and no other contribution to the series. The Dancing on Ice article contains only a parenthetical reference. I don't think this person is notable enough to warrant an article in either instance, and therefore doesn't deserve a disambiguation page -- particularly when taking
MOS:DABREDIR and the rest of
MOS:DAB into consideration. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
15:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mikeblas: Please see
WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader".
BD2412T19:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: yep; it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB. The target articles don't even have a full sentence about this name. No additional value is provided to readers because full text search of the encyclopedia will reveal hits in the articles:
FTS results. Since this DAB doesn't include any notable subjects and isn't useful to readers, it should be deleted. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure that's the meaning of the word "mention". According to our dictionary, "mention" is relevantly defined as a noun as: "A speaking or notice of anything, usually in a brief or cursory manner. Used especially in the phrase make mention of", and as a verb as "To make a short reference to something". I don't see a definition of the word "mention" requiring a "full sentence about this name". I would also defer to the expertise on the subject of... myself, having just crossed the 1.9 million edits threshold, probably half of those being in the area of creating disambiguation pages, fixing disambiguation links, and taking part in the establishment of disambiguation policies and guidelines.
BD2412T22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not even sure how to respond to this. I'm trying to assume good faith, but intimidation isn't appropriate here, and the condescention was bad enough. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
You have missed the main point, which is the first several sentences of my comment. The dictionary definition of the word "mention" covers the uses that are present on the page. Therefore, these are in fact "mentions", as intended by the guideline, and are sufficient to keep the page.
BD2412T00:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB: No.
MOS:DABMENTION gives an example of Maggie Anderson being mentioned in Brigadoon—there's not a dedicated section about her, and the entire page has but two mentions of her.—
Bagumba (
talk)
09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
Delete. This is easy, and I only say that in order not to say "this is insane!"
We have a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. (Next up, an article about a comet listed as
a biography?) Dear colleagues,
the sky is blue. -
The Gnome (
talk)
13:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't often use
wp:IAR as a justification - but a disambiguation page that doesn't actually link any pages it's disambiguating is simply annoying if I was searching for Simon Reed.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. No
lynx. In all seriousness, this page is a list of things people might be looking for if they type "Simon Reed" into the search bar. Is that not exactly what the point of a disambiguation page is? This serves both a helpful and encyclopedic function.
casualdejekyll19:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The entries all link to articles where a Simon Reed is mentioned, but none of them are in-depth coverage at all. As such, I don't view "Simon Reed" as a likely search term for any of the entries.
Sjakkalle(Check!)10:04, 20 April 2022 (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.
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.
Disambiguation pages with no topics do disambiguate. There are no topics on Wikipedia linked here by name, so this page isn't necessary.
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, there are two "Simon Reed"s mentioned in WP, both plausible searches. Page would be useful to someone searching for a person by this name. I have created redirects.
MB22:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Each of these men would merit a redirect from their name to the article where they are mentioned. As their names are the same, a dab page is appropriate.
PamD08:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Please see
MOS:DABREDIR. In the case of the ship captain, there's just one sentence about the name including an acknolwedgement that the name might not in fact be "Simon Reed". For the announcer: The Eurosport article contains just a sentence about his firing and no other contribution to the series. The Dancing on Ice article contains only a parenthetical reference. I don't think this person is notable enough to warrant an article in either instance, and therefore doesn't deserve a disambiguation page -- particularly when taking
MOS:DABREDIR and the rest of
MOS:DAB into consideration. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
15:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Mikeblas: Please see
WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader".
BD2412T19:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412: yep; it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB. The target articles don't even have a full sentence about this name. No additional value is provided to readers because full text search of the encyclopedia will reveal hits in the articles:
FTS results. Since this DAB doesn't include any notable subjects and isn't useful to readers, it should be deleted. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not so sure that's the meaning of the word "mention". According to our dictionary, "mention" is relevantly defined as a noun as: "A speaking or notice of anything, usually in a brief or cursory manner. Used especially in the phrase make mention of", and as a verb as "To make a short reference to something". I don't see a definition of the word "mention" requiring a "full sentence about this name". I would also defer to the expertise on the subject of... myself, having just crossed the 1.9 million edits threshold, probably half of those being in the area of creating disambiguation pages, fixing disambiguation links, and taking part in the establishment of disambiguation policies and guidelines.
BD2412T22:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Not even sure how to respond to this. I'm trying to assume good faith, but intimidation isn't appropriate here, and the condescention was bad enough. --
Mikeblas (
talk)
21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)reply
You have missed the main point, which is the first several sentences of my comment. The dictionary definition of the word "mention" covers the uses that are present on the page. Therefore, these are in fact "mentions", as intended by the guideline, and are sufficient to keep the page.
BD2412T00:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
it gives an example of a section being referenced by a DAB: No.
MOS:DABMENTION gives an example of Maggie Anderson being mentioned in Brigadoon—there's not a dedicated section about her, and the entire page has but two mentions of her.—
Bagumba (
talk)
09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
Delete. This is easy, and I only say that in order not to say "this is insane!"
We have a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. (Next up, an article about a comet listed as
a biography?) Dear colleagues,
the sky is blue. -
The Gnome (
talk)
13:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't often use
wp:IAR as a justification - but a disambiguation page that doesn't actually link any pages it's disambiguating is simply annoying if I was searching for Simon Reed.
Neonchameleon (
talk)
16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. No
lynx. In all seriousness, this page is a list of things people might be looking for if they type "Simon Reed" into the search bar. Is that not exactly what the point of a disambiguation page is? This serves both a helpful and encyclopedic function.
casualdejekyll19:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The entries all link to articles where a Simon Reed is mentioned, but none of them are in-depth coverage at all. As such, I don't view "Simon Reed" as a likely search term for any of the entries.
Sjakkalle(Check!)10:04, 20 April 2022 (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.